Really the mandate ws a "Teapublican" idea?

Of Course the Tea Party formed, such that it is, only about 2 years ago, so what you talkin' bout old gal?

Big Government: What it can or cannot make you do?

Feisty agreed. They should have done that from the beginning. This "Individual Mandate" was a republican idea to begin with and now they are attacking it. Hypocrites.

I remember when President Obama made the comment that it was their (GOP) idea and he liked it so he included that and dozens of other republican ideas into the HCR. Then, holding true to their moral code (or lack of) voted not to support the Bill.

Hmmm...

A constitutional lawyer ought to be able to understand and address the argument, and the legal issues involved.

Even if he IS the President of the United States.

...teapublicans say...you can't make me buy health insurance....you can't make me! I win!

...but, you better make the ER treat me......you better make them do it! You loose!

"dozens of other republican ideas into the HCR"

If the Republicans' ideas were to ruin the private health care industry , that may be so .

As I said on the last thread, it might be interesting if the Administration did NOT appeal this ruling and let the mandate go in favor of the other provisions. I'm not sure that anyone could claim to be aggrieved from a decision that the mandate is severable from the rest of the law.

The insurance companies insisted on the mandate and said the bill wouldn't work without it.

It would be very interesting to see how this all played out.

The Tea Bagger party started in 02/2009.

The mandate was part of the HCR bill, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993, sponsored by Sen. John Chafee (R-RI).

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx

160 Republican amendments were included in the PPCA (Patient Protection and Affordibility Act) aka Obamacare.

http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/

Spanky

Really the mandate ws a "Teapublican" idea?

Of Course the Tea Party formed, such that it is, only about 2 years ago, so what you talkin' bout old gal?

Big Government: What it can or cannot make you do?

Know your history:

Ron Paul: Tea Party 07

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8&feature=player_embedded

Oooo, of course Bev.

So now it was Ron Paul who started the tea party. Okedoky then.

Absolutely nothing to do then with a freshman senator from Ill? Huh. But now how does that fit into your libbie narrative?

Bev. did you lose track of the narrative? Bad bev.

You keep this up and you might get kicked out of the club.

Adidas hit it on the head. The mandate as well as most of the Obama health care plan can be traced to the republican plans of the 90's. And I agree, it's crap. It only ensures a continuation of a corrupt and useless insurance industry. Single payer is cheaper and provides better care. But I guess you can't let economics get in the way of insurance profits.

Make no mistake about it, this plan might provide a bill of good health for the public, but it could amount to a “do not resuscitate” order for federalism.

Jonathan Turley quote

Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University

Michell Bachmann said:

The congresswoman declared that she had "helped to make that argument about the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61224.html#ixzz1V927IiBh

First it was lightbulbs she lead on; now this. There is never a dull moment with this ditz. Keep on yapping Michelle . You are so hilarious.

So we are blaming Nancy and Harry then? They wrote it, but you are saying they couldn't even come up with their own idea - had to steal from republicans?

Man, they really do suck.

They also kinda jacked the stimulus bill. Oh well you all with continue to re-elect them anyway, right? Of course you will.

"Under the Obama administration's theory, the court said, "There is no reason why Congress could not similarly compel Americans to insure against any number of unforeseeable but serious risks. High costs and cost-shifting in premiums are simply not limited to hospital care, but occur when individuals are disabled, cannot work, experience an accident, need nursing care, die, and myriad other insurance-related contingencies." "

Good point. What's to stop the Federal Government from requiring everyone to buy disability insurance, private unemployment insurance, nursing home insurance, life (death) insurance, liability insurance, and insurance against just about any other conceivable thing that could happen to people - at a cost of perhaps thousands of dollars per person each year.

Maybe they could also 'mandate' that every family must purchase a car (and insurance) because they 'might' need to drive sometime in their lifetime. Maybe people should have to 'insure' against earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, tsunamis, etc., etc., etc.

Where does it stop?

Dang Spanky, why so bitter? I'm actually agreeing with you that the health care bill isn't a good idea. What's wrong, can't take yes for an answer?

Bitter? Naaa, caustic wit.

Problem is, although I appreciate the agreement it for the wrong reason. Single payer would be a disaster. Could you imagine the government being in total control?

They can't do anything even partially right.

Better the government than an industry that wants to make the most profit and provide the least amount of service as possible. Health care should not be market driven.

Liar Liar Feisty's on FIRE.

No the MANDATE was the Demo way of getting out of calling it a TAX. This is the very definition of "hoisted on your own pittard"

And thank heavens they are so dumb they forgot to include the "severability clause". Meaning that when the "Mandate" was ruled "unconstitutional" the Bill is DEAD.

So yeah, lie, spin,smear, deflect. It's deader than the witch Dorothy killed. We can even sing a song about it

"Ding dong the bill is dead, which ole bill- the Healthcare bill. DIng Dong the healthcare bill is dead"

L@@k at that JS1 - Your old arthritic bench warmer has shown up - you can get off your knees now - NJNB will take over for you.. lmao!

Keep it up looney toon. Keep it up. IT IS AGAINST THE CODE OF HONOR to insinuate someone is posting her under other names. I guess your "safecracker" play didn't work out.

You do realize of course, you have displayed YOUR own racism and homophobia, not bad for just one day of posting. Constant comments about "being on the knees" wow, so classy. And typical of liberals "tolerance" lol.

Keep the song, MILLIONS will be singing it soon enough.

And so typical of you TO IGNORE THAT THE DEMS BLEW THIS ONE!!!!
LOL LOL LOL eventually you are going to realize that BASELESS ATTACKS DO NOT JUSTIFY NOT ANSWERING A QUESTION.

Can't address the "mandate" call me another poster, lol. I mean really you think anyone is fooled by your formula of "lie, spin, smear, deflect" NO. Well not anyone with a functioning IQ above a rock.

Now go back to the DDI and complain. Or email Sally and Tyler and tell them I'm "being mean to you" I'm sure they'll get right on that. Meantime I am going to email them ALL your posts laced with racism, homophobia and expletives.

Lol keep flagging me as spam. Too funny.

adidas 503

You're quoting "Slate" as a credible source? Why not a source that's more 'Right Wing', like the Daily Kos?

And even that's not the point. Shoot, even if Republicans were stuck with the HCR bill and didn't it, OF COURSE they would try and get it changed.

I mean didn't the Republicans decide to NOT do anything to health care in the 1990's? It's that circular logic again. A bad idea is a bad idea. Not matter who got it first.

Yes...single payer...keep those typing sticks coming in...

Always attack the source as biased or liberal. The problem is "conservatives" RARELY post ANY links to ANY sources so until you do, at least skim over the source posted because its the best I could find.

If the information I seek (and will help the debate) can be found in an article by the Christian Science Monitor, the Heritage Foundation, or the Wall Street Journal (News Corp), I always post them so you dont have to bark "objection"

Now if you read the Slate article you would have seen a downloadable Excel Spreadsheet summarizing 437 of 788 amendments that were voted on (Dems submitted 67 of the 788).

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2220911/2221030/2222297/GOPHELPAmendments.xls

We can all admit that "reforming" HC is not going to be easy when considering special interests AND main street interests. STOP stoking the fire because you think it will help defeat Obama in 2012. If Obama wins reelection THEN will you quit with the socialism BS and discuss things logically?

Any future Bill (and amendments) that tweaks PPAC aka Obamacare should be put up for public review and I expect hashtags like these to be top "trenders" on Twitter.

#hcr3963amend230hellno #hcr3963amd400hellyes #hcr3963amd233wtf

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3962:

Correction: Final Bill Number 3590

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590:

(if link appears broken the colon character must be added at the end of the URL)

You could have fixed this problem by putting all the uninsured on medicaid and been done with it. The democrats wanted to use "social engineering" and thus created this POS. This law is not only unconstitutional but it's highly immoral too. To think as a country that we are even discussing this"mandate" is highly offensive to all those who have fought and died for our freedom!! What the H-LL are you people thinking??

This is leadership?

What we need is a leader not some political stooge!!

adidas 503

The final consolidated bill is available on Healthcare.com. The bills as posted to Thomas can be very difficult to navigate as they tend to make references to numerous other sections of the US code.

Maxx Power

Medicaid is designed as a program for the poor. A vast majority of uninsured are either uninsurable (Pre-existing conditions) or work and can't afford insurance, or choose not to insure (made of steel).

Now if you say "Public Option" that is clearly a better solution, however it was politically impossible to achieve it.

Correction, healthcare.gov.

If you modified medicaid to include those provisions then problem is solved!! BTW pre existing people can get insurance they just have to pay higher premiums then healthy people. Now sometimes they can't afford those premiums and that's where medicaid can supplement the premium. Still problem solved without "socially engineering" 1/6 of the economy!!

Now if we had real leadership we could have solved these problems after we got this country back to work, but Obama wanted to do some "social engineering" instead of what's best for the country!!

Many people with pre-existing conditions are denied insurance at all.

Providing Medicaid for 50 million people would be massively expensive. Far more than Medicare since Medicare is a program people pay into and Medicaid is completely government funded out of general revenue. That would truly be social engineering.

You Liberals had extremely poor leadership on this healthcare issue. Obama, Reid, Pelosi went out of thier way to alienate the Republicans on every issue since Obama got elected. Obama's call for bi-partisan support left the barn 2.5 years ago. The best way to fix things now is to elect a new President and minority leader for the house and majority leader for the senate....

LMAO......Now Liberals, in their effort to shift blame to anyone or anything but themselves, have finally quit blaming George Bush.........Round 2 of the Obama con game will be led with...Blame the nasty ol Tea Baggers. To do this and somehow still have their delusion of intellectual superiority is their height of arrogance, ignorance, and hypocrisy. This is a one party, poorly written piece of legislature that was past for show.

Well is it 30 million or 50 million people?? Anytime it fits the argument the numbers go up! Now the cost of medicaid for those we are talking about surely is not 1 trillion dollars over 10 years and using the "cost curve" that libbies are so fond of it would be less. But in reality the cost of privately insuring a group of people so large (30 or 50 million)would make premiums affordable, plus the "mandate" would not be needed and just think of all the jobs that would create!

Face it, Obamacare is a piece of sh-t and everybody knows it except for hard core bat sh-t crazy left wing nut jobs!!

Personally, I don't think you fall into that category of nut job :o)

The numbers have gone up. 30 million is from several years ago. Many people lost their health insurance during the last two years.

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/number-people-without-health-insurance-rises

Average cost per capita for health care in the US is $7,538 times 50,000,0000 equals roughly $377 billion. That's a cost of roughly $2500 per taxpayer if apportioned evenly across 150,000,000 taxpayers.

I'll bet you know virtually no specific information about the ACA. What specifically makes it bad legistlation.

Ultimately, what is needed is a single payer model. Otherwise, we'll continue down the road of the highest per capita healthcare expenditures with the lowest overall efficacy. In other words we spend a lot but get very little in terms of health and lifespans. Other countries simply do this better. We need to get the private insurers out of the business of directing care. If anyone thinks that the U.S. doesn't ration it's healthcare access, think again.

The PPAC was heavily amended by the republicans. More than half of the bill amendments came from the GOP side of the aisle. There's that compromise thing again. The individual mandate originally came out of the Healthcare discussions of the Clinton Admin. as the GOP alternative to singlepayer. Which, was the Dems favored approach.

It seems that we can not have a multipayer private insurance based model without an individual mandate. Insurance pricing is driven by risk pools. If the risk pools aren't broad enough demographically the carrying cost will be too high and the price will go up. And, you'll be back where you started with uninsured people using the most expensive delivery models being funded through higher costs for the rest of those who carry insurance.

Man,

FYI I have read about 800 pages of Obamacare bill and it's very complicated. I read enough as I did with Dodd-Frank that it is the wrong approach. You see the goal of this piece of sh-t is to get the industry to go bankrupt and then have the government step in and take over thus "single payer"just like the UK model. I have had personal experience with that system and my comment will be short and sweet - mid evil medicine!! A friend of mines son just graduated medical school said if had known of ACA or the real name Obamascare he would have never gone into medical field. It is going to limit how much he makes tells him how and what he needs to practice. I can't remember the exact page but it talks about the "general practice of Doctors" and that the Boards shall be directed by HHS to place doctors in the area of greatest need.

I can go on and on but you see I have millions of people on welfare depending on me for their next check, so back to work I go!!

Now don't you look foolish!!

You say you read it, but your comments reveal you did not or did not understand what you read. The legislation expands the entire industry at every level. Who is going bankrupt?

UK is not single payer it is socialized medicine. The government owns and operates most medical facilities and pays doctors salaries. Single payer is where the government provide a central source of health insurance but medical facilities and practitioners remain independent businesses or non-profits.

It is going to limit how much he makes

How so? It has nothing to do with doctor incomes. I does control how much the government spends on doctors. That is essential to cost control.

tells him how and what he needs to practice

It does no such thing. It determines what the government and to some extent insurance will pay for which is not much different than what insurance companies already do. The difference is that what is covered will be clearly defined and available to the public rather than held as trade secrest within the insurance industry. That is another cost saver.

I can't remember the exact page but it talks about the "general practice of Doctors" and that the Boards shall be directed by HHS to place doctors in the area of greatest need.

The system places some requriements on the practice of medicine. It is after all a healthcare law. Electronic record keeping is an example of something it requires of doctors dealing with Medicare which is itself a vast cost saver in the market. It is absurd that an industry that is at the forefront of modern science cannot accumulate and analyze data about what is successful and what is not in the industry and what may or may not be cost effective.

As far as placing doctors, it cannot place doctors. They are still free citizens. It provides finanical incentives for doctors to work for a period of time in places in need of their services.

Maxxpower, It's hard to track all of your points. But, one I can respond to. " then have the government step in and take over thus "single payer"just like the UK model. I have had personal experience with that system and my comment will be short and sweet - mid evil medicine!!"

I have lived under The UK model and several other similar single payer systems in Europe, nothing 'mid evil' about them. They're effective, consistent, and comprehensive. And, they're quite cost effective compared to the U.S. in cost/GDP terms. They deliver better performance in terms of outcomes. Although, they don't have the obesity issue or the poverty related diseases that the U.S. has. Those clearly drive the costs up. But, in general the U.S. system is costly and not very effective. The PPCA does try to move things in a better direction. But, even supporters of this legislation would say that it's a less than ideal set of compromises. But, hey, that's our system.

It is Obama's signature piece. He wanted to be a rockstar but didn't have the talent, so he climbed in bed with Chicago union thugs and voila. That's why he had to rush it through and now he's even got a tour bus! Party on!

a former constitutional law professor,

Ahhh yesss - play that card only when convenient!

Did I mention booby, how much fun I'm having today watching you right wing nitwits search for a corner in a round room?

*popcorn*?

this is different from his treatment the Constitutional issues regarding the Libyan "kinetic military action" how?

Obama never lets the facts of matters get in the way. The Constitution is inconvenient for him, because it is used to thwart his will. Ignoring it is his best option.

Next, he'll be telling us it's broken.

I for one can't wait to see the education transcripts. We saw them for Bush and even Perry.

Or are all of Obama's lockedin a secret vault under the sea.

Must be cause his grades were that good, right?

How them knees old gal?

• In February 2004, about a month before the primary election in the U.S. Senate race, the Associated Press reported the stance of all the candidates on universal health care. "Obama says he supports the idea of universal health care but does not think a single-payer government system is feasible. He says the government should be the health care provider of last resort for the uninsured." In a rundown of all the candidates' positions, the Associated Press summarized Obama's position as "Support, but 'probably not at this stage,' a single-payer government system."
• In his book The Audacity of Hope , published in October 2006 when he was a U.S. senator, Obama described single-payer as the hope of the left, while those on the right wanted a market-based approach. "It's time we broke this impasse by acknowledging a few simple truths," Obama wrote, suggesting a system much like the one he supports today.
• In April 2007, a few months after he declared his candidacy for presidency, the Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama has pledged that, if elected, all Americans would have health-care coverage by the end of his first term. He has said he is reluctant to switch to a 'single-payer' national health insurance system because of the difficulty in making a quick transition from the employer-based private system."
• At his town halls as president, he routinely answers questions about single-payer by saying he would favor it if he were starting a system "from scratch." But he consistently adds that's not the goal of the current reform. "For us to transition completely from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system could be hugely disruptive, and my attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free-market system," Obama said in Annandale, Va., on July 1, 2009.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/16/barack-obama/obama-statements-single-payer-have-changed-bit/

The President was never really behind single payer, but many of his liberal supporters wanted to believe that he was.

Uh, hello dangerfield - dude is a "blank slate" and all.

He is whatever they want him to be.

Or, mayhaps not.

Spanky-

I for one can't wait to see the education transcripts. We saw them for Bush and even Perry.

There's no need when the President graduated cum laude

Or are all of Obama's lockedin a secret vault under the sea

If you're that interested why do you try scuba diving; Captain Nemo? Don't try and make funny noises; it'll cut off the oxygen you'll need to keep your quizzical brain functioning. who knows you might even find a mermaid; which is about the speed you need in your Fantasy Island.

"no need..."

I got it Bev.

As for the rest of your post, I have no idea. Nemo, funny noises and mermaids. Sounds like the last line of Obama supporters. Other than you and Feisty that is.

Spanky:

Really the mandate ws a "Teapublican" idea?

To be perfectly accurate, the mandate was a creature of the insurance companies, which would not agree to the other provisions without a mandate that would guarantee enough additional revenue.

The bet, of course, is that some people won't take insurance, and then the insurance companies gain revenue that can be used to pay for emergency room services for the poor and line the pockets of the insurers.

If people do take insurance, then so much the better.

I haven't read the most recent decision, but the Florida decision makes clear that the insurers would not want HCR if there is no mandate. Insurer cooperation was central to what the President was trying to do, and no doubt why he was willing to forgo the public option. The House contained a severability provision because Nancy Pelosi probably knew better than to leave it out. But she lost control of the deal at the end, and the Senate bill was the one that passed, in all probability orchestrated by the insurance companies, because the Senate bill left out the severability provision, making the entire bill vulnerable if the mandate fell to a challenge.

Or does someone think the insurance companies inadvertently missed that omission?

And someone on the Hill either overlooked the missing provision, or looked the other way.

And that's why it would be so interesting to see what would happen if the mandate goes and everything else stays. At that point, the only way to repeal the bill would be to elect a Republican congress AND president in 2012.

Or does someone think that Republicans haven't already thought of that?

But notwithstanding all of that, I still say Republicans would be foolish to try to run a campaign built around repealing HCR, reducing "entitlements," and giving more tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of a still suffering middle class.

And that's why God will be the big issue in the campaign. Watch for it.

What KOA campsite is Obama bunking down at tonight?

You think Obama will teach Sasha and Malia how to hook up the waste lines? Build a campfire, roast some marshmallows?

What, they are not staying at select KOAs? Now that's just a shame.

And a waste of what will probably be the finest motor home in the history of mankind.

Ah, summertime at a KOA. Rv-ing a fine American pastime that make Al Gore's head explode. Al Gore, not likely to ever of had the pleasure of piloting a fine motor home around the country. More of a :fly over in my bitchin private jet" type.

I don't know, JS1, but evidently it has really good wifi.

Reuters just broke this exciting story:

Obama will reveal his new, guaranteed to work, economic stimulous package in. . . .

September.

After the trip to the Vineyard, so he'll be well rested enough to deal with the outburst of enthusiasm it will engender.

Of course, it's not written yet, but it will grow jobs and the economy, while at the same time, cut the deficit!

It slices, dices, purees and whips! Oh, and, like his HCR, you can eat all you want and still lose weight!

(I guess we're not opposed to ask what happened to his plan to introduce a new idea to grow jobs every week. I think thinking about it gave him a headache. Either that, or writing stuff down interfered with his tee time.)

Anyway, I guess we're all supposed to be waiting anxiously for this wondrous new plan to come down from on high.

Or Chilmark- think they're the same thing? Cause, it looks like Obama does.

Aw, come on NoJo - he needs time to refine that sweet plan of his. And as luck would have it, he'll have plenty of reflection time as he drives that buss down the road.

Yep, nothing like the open road to clear a man's thoughts. Just watch out for white line fever, and I hope someone tells him to turn towards the big rigs as they pass. Otherwise the whole coach wobbles along.

So you all think they will close the entire road as he travel along a' meetin' and a' greetin'? THe can't be having no traffic around Motor Home 1, can they? Will they clear out the entire KOA?

Yeah this whole bus trip seems like a brillant idea.

Well, Spanky, Mr. smart Guy got us to pay for it, didn't he? And the media bought it hook, line, and sinker.

We bought $2 million of new vehicles- and the word is, we ought to, because "other presidents can use them".

When was the last time you heard of a sitting president tooling around in a bus?

I'm thinking he was trying to distance himself from Carter. Carter sold the presidential yacht- which was a gift, I believe. So, Obama goes out and buys himself a really cool tour bus.

The treehouse kids laid in a lot of champagne last week- and used it to drown their sorrows. I'm thinking beer for tomorrow.

They're going to need drugs in November 2012-unless obama can't raise the money and quits the race before then.

The new buses, maintained by security, will be available to the eventual GOP nominee.

KOA will remain open to all.

Spanks

I have an idea. I suggest changing the FEC so that candidates must provide prior to a Federal election run the following documentation:

1. Vault copy of your birth certificate, as retained by the hospital of birth.

2. Copy of the original social security request, available through the SSA.

3. Copies of all school records, from pre K or equivilant to highest level of education.

4. Copies of your most recent medical physical.

5. Copies of your driver's license and confirmed driving record.

6. Credit report (all three should be required)

7. Copies of marriage certificate, if it applies.

I think these changes would make life easier for the electorate going forward.

AM

Since the Democrats never included the severability clause, the WHOLE bill is unconstitutional. "Reducing entitlements" are you kidding? It's more like REFORMING entitlements as right now you have legalized theft on behalf of the government to pay for someone's retirement, but not your own.

Reps had better campaign on both. I'm an Indie voting Rep this time and they need to do something about the system, since it is bankrupt.

Spanky- "I for one can't wait to see the education transcripts. We saw them for Bush and even Perry. Or are all of Obama's lockedin a secret vault under the sea. Must be cause his grades were that good, right?"

Don't hold your breath - Obama will NEVER release his SATs or transcripts because it would destroy the carefully crafted 'image' of being 'smart'. If his SATs were any good at all, he would have been able to get into Harvard using Affirmative Action right out of high school, but he didn't even graduate from high school with any honors, so that tells us all we need to know.

By the way, all we see from the 'experts' is that his classmates at Harvard were smart, so Obama must be smart too - totally ignoring the fact that Obama even admitted to having the benefit of Affirmative Action enrollment practices at top schools.

I'd like to disagree Roy, the trouble is, I can't.

I'm tired of hearing how smart he is, if he is then why not let those pieces of paper be out there. This is one of the reasons why I believe the FEC really needs to start getting more info from ALL candidates (not yelling at you, don't want to be misconstrued and/or taken out of context). It is the best way and fairest way to get all the info from a candidate that is important.

Surely more transparency when it comes to presidential candidates is a good thing.

Especially not when you had 12 million people out of work, at that time. I was no rookie mistake though Dangerfield, it was a way of paying back his supporters. The HCR bill is loaded with goodies for GE, and we all know who they own. They get to create most of the new technology. I would think a "constitutional lawyer" would understand the definition of "monopoly"

Rookie mistake

Yes, one that your professional career politicians probably would not make;

On the other hand, someone who truly desires to do the best for America and her citizens would not pay attention to the political ramifications and proceed with what is right. Remember? John Kennedy wrote a pulitzer prize winning book adressing this phenomenon titled Profiles in Courage . Thank you President Obama for real leadership.

The fact remains that effective national healthcare is necessary and must be instituted; this is only a begining and, obviously, must be corrected, amended and tweaked until it is right. The fact that Republicans added 160 amendments (mostly pork for their wealthy special intrest friends/supporters) was probably not beneficial to the bill - "too many chefs spoil the soup" - but was necessary to get something done. Bottom line: we have a start; lets improve from here.

What does it all boil down to? Increased taxes, larger government(politicians that do not pay taxes) crooks that should have been prosecuted but ended up on the white house payroll.. Sure, "for the poeple, by the poeple"Give me a brake. yea! not as stupid as you think...

The same old talking points from the RWNJS.

Curious they want to talk about ANYTHING other than the current crop of misfits they've got running... lol

This is going to be fun!

"This is going to be fun!"

Hmmmm..isnt that what Feisty said about the 2010 election?

She must be a masochist.

Bob, you are right, also Fiesty and her merry band of liberals were all excited about the recall elections in Wisconsin and was going to bake cakes and have a party, but after the election and they lost I never heard anything from them. They kept a low profile and stayed in their rooms crying.

They kept a low profile and stayed in their rooms crying.

I don't know where you were honey but, Feisty & the rest of the merry liberals were on First Read the every next morning...

As a matter of fact, I believe I was the first post...

Go check it out before running your mouth off will you?

Otherwise, it makes you appear ignorant! ;o)

You should come out from under the troll bridge more often - sunshine is good for the soul!

sfcret,

Not all of them, some were here trying to spin the results, like Obama, "it could of been worse".

Fiesty, It seems you are always the first one on First Read along with your merry band of liberals, that is why I mostly don't bother with the first 15 or so post, since they are all the same. BTW the main reason I don't respond to more of your post is that you don't offer anything except left wing talking points and usually have nothing to contribute to a rational conversation.

Well said, talking points get old and yet that's all they've got. I mean these guys claim WI recalls were a "win". Of course they did nothing to change the WI majorities. You have to wonder with this bunch, if when they got a F in school if they thought it meant, Fabulous or something.

They kept a low profile and stayed in their rooms crying.

Not this merry Lib! Two less republican dirt balls to stench up the place, and you call that a causwe for SADNESS?!

I hate unemployed people,.....unless they're republicans. *Tee* *Hee*

So what exactly was the 10 election? A celebration of Obama?? LMAO wow, just wow.

Ah yes...fiesty is always the first to post...she's up early to check the mailbox for her check...man I am I gonna' laugh when that stops...nah...not laugh...do the Snoopy happy dance!

Happy days are here again...

navy and fiesty hand's are out again...

and they're empty again, again...

happy days are here again!

Thetotas, Yes the position of the administration was to allow it to continue through the normal court procedures. This was put out by the White House and the DOJ.

"If the President really believes in his Health Care Law and wants to settle it ASAP should join the 26 states and ask the Supreme Court to immediately take the case, no need for further appeals to the full appeals courts since it will end up in the Supreme Court anyway. Why keep spending money at the federal and state levels on something that probably will be ruled as unconstitutional. Millions have been spend so far, all for nothing."

But in the meantime, Obama's cronies get to collect on what they were promised in the HCR bill. No corp taxes for GE, 30% increases in current HC plans, et al. So it's not money spent for nothing, it's money for getting Obam elected.

C'mon you know why Obama doesn't want this fast tracked, its for the same reason he didn't want people to read the bill. It is a a disaster and violation of many laws, not just Interstate commerce, but also the 4th amendment, protecting all of us from illegal search and seizure. How can one be "free" and have liberty to determine their own life, when they don't have control over their own body or healthare?

I've stated before I'm an Indie voting R this time (I don't care who the candidate is, unless it's Bachmann I'm voting R) this is one of the main reasons why.

Please:

What on earth does

Obama's cronies get to collect on what they were promised in the HCR bill. No corp taxes for GE,

have to do with a federal court ruling on Health Care Law? Was General Electric mentioned in the bill OR in the published court decision? If so, I must have missed it.

Sometimes you guys are just TOO MUCH - over the edge with your bigotry and hatred of the U.S. President.

Bothers me.

Bothers a lot of unemployed democrats who failed to infer what was meant by "difference" when he said "the difference between now and 1994 is, this time, you've got me". He never said the losses would be higher- but, more fool them for not thinking it through. Not to mention the millions of jobs his stimulous would save or create- he never mentioned that they would be in China.

Don't get me started on Buffet- he sheltered his wealth in a foundation, so he will not have inheritance taxes decimate the fortune he amassed. Of course, he never pays anything extra on his yearly tax bill, either.

I've had a super sufficiency of Buffet the Hypocrite- and more than enough of Obama the Failing Fool.

"Now, he's calling the health care mandate "controversial." Another omission of the details and distortion of the facts.
The President distorts the truth consistently. Doesn't that bother anyone?"

Only the truly bothered, and the maleficent.

LMAO Maybe if Obama had passed a budget it wouldn't have happened. Oh wait, he did try a budget and it got voted down 97-0 even the dems wouldn't touch it.

Do you really think that 37% approval rating among Independent/the right track/wrong track/unemployment/and the mess of an HCR bill are going to get Obama reelected? If you do I have a very very nice bridge in lower Manhattan to sell you, cheap too!

Forgot to add that the economy was deteriorating long before the debt ceiling, more like the rapid succession of spending on HCR and "stimulus".

Talking point rhetoric, no matter how powerful before, is not going to win this election. Not when you have well over 20% unemployment among minorities and young voters. Coupled with the 37% approval rating among Indies, sorry but the Dems would be better off dumping Obama for someone else, and I doubt even that would work.

simple fact - employment was trending up until Obamacare signed into law.

But Fancy's spot on - the libbies have hightailed it out of town.

Too demoralized, even for them.

No.... it wasn't.....

@ halo, It may also help if you Tea Party types would actually read the Constitution of the USA, you know the same one that they are always yelling about. Look it up for yourself. The Constitution clearly places the responsibility to enact laws, controll the spending, present the bills/budgets/ plans on the CONGRESS. No President, past, present or future has absolute authority. This is why the Founding Fathers designed it the way that they did. the Congress, both Houses are derelict in their duties. They swore under oath to represent all of the people, not just a few and the 95% of those that signed the pledge to Grover Norquist should resign.

Marcus is an idiot not fit to rule on matters where other humans are involved.

Who cares what he says.

If you don't care what he says, why comment? You attack the judge rather than the point of law, and don't bother to back it up with any reasons for the attack.

King, you bring facts and logic to an emotional topic. Great post.

Thank you. Facts are the stuff that kills political rhetoric.

Specific tires for your car? Certain brands/types of clothes? Everyone must purchase an apartment of a certain size and can not purchase a larger apartment, a home, or choose to purchase nothing? No one can purchase land exceeding a certain amount or type? Or everyone must purchase a plot of land regardless of whether they want to or not. Everyone must purchase stock in a particular industry or company?

Sounds like rhetoric to me. Tires must meet certain standards so anyone can buy whatever tires they want. If someone buys snow tires and they live in Arizona that will not result in someone getting into an accident then BANKRUPTING them due to medical costs because they have CAR INSURANCE.

Health Insurance costs are out of control. Entitlements = Healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid). One thing people dont know about Medicaid. If you are on Medicaid and have any ASSETS the GOVT will take them to help pay for your MedicAID. If you have enough money for a house and car, then you should pay for health care. If you are too poor to pay for healthcare you get mediCAID.

So yes America is based on LIFE and Liberty (Freedom) however our FOUNDING FATHERS downplayed "protection of property" as a role of government.

Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government. It is noted that Franklin found property to be a "creature of society" and thus, he believed that it should be taxed as a way to finance civil society

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness

Now what about America standing for Capitalism? The Free Market? If Freedom = Free Market then the solution to MILLIONS of uninsured Americans is to help our PRIVATE SECTOR insurance companies aka "Corporations" aka "People" to SPREAD The RISK.

The Individual Mandate will SPREAD The RISK of insuring those with pre-existing conditions. If HEALTHY people like myself (35 yrs old) of whom has never had a CAVITY, never had a BROKEN BONE, and is healthy as an OX pays into the system, then the COSTS for EVERYONE will GO DOWN.

The report found that the four top for-profit health insurers in the U.S. denied coverage to 1 of every 7 applicants from 2007 to 2009 based on their medical histories. This selectivity, which was intended to reduce the companies' costs and protect profit margins, makes sense from a business perspective. But it contorts the definition of insurance, which is to spread risk across a pool of customers.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/18/opinion/la-ed-insure-20101018

If HEALTHY people like myself (35 yrs old) of whom has never had a CAVITY, never had a BROKEN BONE, and is healthy as an OX pays into the system, then the COSTS for EVERYONE will GO DOWN.

Apparently, you do not understand the difference between the cost of purchasing an insurance policy and the cost of the services the policy pays for. There is nothing in the health care law that reduces the fees doctors and hospitals charge. Those fees will continue to rise as more and more people partake of their services.Particularly with the aging of the baby boom generation.Not to mention the effect of legalizing 10 to 20 million illegals will have on the system (which Mr. Obama wants to do). In turn, the premiums charged by health insurance carriers will have to rise to meet the increasing costs. So no, Obama's plan does not reduce cost, it actually increases them

.
But all that you say does nothing to address the constitutionality of the government mandating individuals to buy a particular product, regardless of whether they want it or not. While you may think it is acceptable to mandate the purchase of health insurance, you can not escape the fact that if the government is allowed to do that the government can mandate that you purchase just about anything else they see fit to cause you to purchase. This is a classic class warfare set up, where you have the lower 50% of the economic strata looking to the government to mandate that the upper 50% pay for their insurance, housing, food clothes, medicine, water, vacations, reading materials, entertainment etc... Thereby reducing the incentive of the upper 50% to do anything. Then who will pay for it all? Oh, that's right, we will just keep borrowing the money from China and Russia, right?

Man of knowledge

Representative government has its limits and those limits are established by the Constitution. If the representative and the people want to change the Constitution there is a procedure for doing so. But that procedure is not by expanding the commerce clause powers so that individual liberties/freedoms are swallowed by it.

Buying newspapers affects interstate commerce. Should the federal government be allowed to mandate that you buy a certain newspaper or magazine simply because one political party or the other is able to muster enough votes to mandate the purchase? Perhaps under the additional guise that it provides education to the masses at a cheap price!!! Would it change your mind at all if the newspaper or magazine happened to take a political point of view you do not adhere to? Or espouse religious points of view you were not fond of? I think the world has already witnessed such systems of government where that was tried and rejected? Remember the Soviet Union? But hey, if the government says it must be so than it must be so, right MAN?

By the way MAN, in case you haven't noticed, our Representatives in Congress and the White House have ignored the people, both in the process of making Obamacare and in the content thereof. The overwhelming majority of people were and still are not in favor of the individual mandate. Just like the overwhelming majority of the people (70% or more) want a balanced budget amendment. But what did that matter??? Thank God for the ballot box, the courts and the Constitution. All three can give the people protection when our Representatives fail us. But elections are only held every so often whereas the Constitution and the courts are always there.

Your examples of what Congress might mandate ignores my point. Such mandates would never stand political muster and thus could never pass Congress.

The Commerce clause of the constitution has long been a point of debate in its interpretation and indeed has changed over time since the very idea of commerce has changed over time. This is just another step in interprting that Constitution and exercise that has been ongoing since it was adopted.

Your idea of what people want is not supported by elections which is the only poll that counts. The ACA went through all required stept for passage into law. That is why it is currently a law.

The UK is not single payer it is socialized medicine. Learn the difference.

If American didn't want the ACA it would not now be law.

Man of Knowledge - Over 62% of Americans did not want the ACA and it was shoved down the peoples throat in the dead of night behind closed doors. Hopeful the Supreme Court will follow suit with the lower appeals court and find the law unconstitutional.

Elected representatives of the people passed the law. Elections are the only polls that carry the weigh of law in this country. So far one Appeals court upheld the law and the other struck down only the minimum coverage requirment.

Then Mr Obama should have no problem convincing the Supreme Court of his position. So why is he delaying submission of the case to the Supreme Court? What is he afraid of? I'll tell you. He doesn't want the issue to interfere with his campaign plans. So best to put it off until after the election than to have it shot down before the election and make his "constitutional scholar" credentials look bad.

The actions of the courts are beyond his control. The courts are responding to lawsuits in their own time and fashion.

The Obama administration can ask the Supreme Court to hear the case now, rather than asking for it to be reviewed by the entire panel of the 11th Circuit. Don't try to pretend you know something when you clearly don't.

They don't need to ask the plaintiffs have already asked. It is completely up to the SCOTUS and it would be unprecedented for them to circumvent the appeals process. Besides why should they hasten lawsuits against them?

Of course Obama has no interest in getting the issue resolved. It only involves the entire country. It's more important to worry about getting reelected. And it is not unprecedented to request the Court to hear a matter before it is reheard, en banc. Especially when you have conflicting decisions by several Appeals Courts and one of the parties is the Fed Gov. Again, please stop pretending you know something when you clearly don't. Otherwise, please change your screen name to Man of Conjecture

The issue is resolved. It is a law. Lawsuits come and go.

Man you are one heck of a knuckle head. Apparently you do not understand that for at least 26 states the individual mandate is no longer a valid law. So sayeth the 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals. And until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, individuals residing in those States will not have to comply with it. Not so in the 6th Circuit. So what are we going to have, parts of the country under the law and parts not? The issue has to be heard by the Supreme Court at some time. Best to do it now. Why drag it out?

Man you are one heck of a knuckle head. Apparently you do not understand that for at least 26 states the individual mandate is no longer a valid law. So sayeth the 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals. And until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, individuals residing in those States will not have to comply with it. Not so in the 6th Circuit. So what are we going to have, parts of the country under the law and parts not? The issue has to be heard by the Supreme Court at some time. Best to do it now. Why drag it out?

The minimum coverage requirement doesn't take effect until 2013. Whether or not it is valid now is irrelevent. Besides the Federal court system does not divide up by region when it comes to the Constitution. Either a law is Constitutional for the whole country or it is not.

When SCOTUS takes it up is up to the court. If they are in a rush the Plaintiffs in Thomas Moore vs Obama have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari (fast track processing). That case has cleared the Circuit Court of Appeals. If SCOTUS is in a rush they can take it up any time.

And that should be the one line decision of the Supreme Court. The affecting interstate commerce theory of interpreting the commerce clause powers was recognized to be troublesome since its inception. And sure enough, Congress has taken it and run wild, so that they are now ready to regulate, tax and mandate that you do what ever they deem fit because, if you don't, it will affect interstate commerce. This would be a great case for the Court to reject that whole theory and go back to the intention of the founders. And that was simply to allow and facilitate the free exchange of commerce between and among the States, without interference by any one or group of States. And to allow for commerce between the US and other nations without interference by any one or group of States. Not to give power to Congress to regulate any and every thing having an effect on commerce. Eating food effects interstate Commerce, should Congress be able to mandate that we buy and eat certain foods? We are mandated to eat veggies only, no meat or fish. Veggies are better for interstate commerce. Or how about the opposite, meat and fish only, because veggies are too costly to produce , take up too much land that could be used to produce other things, like housing,and attracts illegal aliens thereby affecting interstate commerce? What are the limits if this is allowed to stand? There are none!!!!

Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. In an interview with Ebony in 1990, he stated that he saw a degree in law as a vehicle to facilitate better community organization and activism: "The idea was not only to learn how to hope and dream about different possibilities, but to know how the tax structure affects what kind of housing gets built where. At the end of his first year he was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review based on his grades and a writing competition. In February 1990, his second year at Harvard, he was elected president of the law review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the law review's staff of 80 editors. Obama's election as the first black president of the law review was widely reported and followed by several long, detailed profiles. He got himself elected by convincing a crucial swing bloc of conservatives that he would protect their interests if they supported him. Building up that trust was done with the same kind of long listening sessions he had used in the poor neighborhoods of South Side, Chicago. Richard Epstein, who later taught at the University of Chicago Law School when Obama later taught there, said Obama was elected editor "because people on the other side believed he would give them a fair shake."

fyi: This is where President Obama lived in Somerville, MA while attending Harvard University.

http://centersandsquares.com/2009/07/23/barack-obama-lived-here-365-broadway-somerville/

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/18/7406205-first-thoughts-dog-days#c57180015