ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [216] -- Obama Cares

[ Posted Friday, June 29th, 2012 – 16:19 PDT ]

Well, that was a pretty stunning week. Lots of other things happened politically, but in truth it was a one-issue type of week, so this is going to be a one-issue type of column.

I must admit being personally stunned at the Obamacare decision -- not so much what it said (stunning enough), but who said it. Before the ruling, I would have given odds on two or three possible permutations: a 5-4 ruling with Kennedy being the swing vote (either way), or quite possibly a 6-3 ruling upholding Obamacare and the mandate, with Roberts joining Kennedy and the liberal wing (likely because Roberts would realize he needed to be on the right side of history on this one). But I don't think I ever even considered the possibility of a 5-4 decision with Roberts as the key swing vote. I don't feel too bad for missing this possibility, because everyone else in the entire media/political/legal universe also missed it.

Which was why it was so stunning. It was as if Lex Luthor suddenly decided that fighting next to Superman for truth, justice, and the American way was truly the right thing to do. Roberts may have prompted this last sentence (I admit) with his comment about where he's heading on vacation (to Malta, which Roberts joked was an "impregnable island fortress")... where maybe he'll seek some solitude, perhaps...?

All kidding aside, though, it certainly has been fun to see the other side spin. As a child's reader might put it: "See GOP spin. Spin, spin, spin! So sad, the spinning."

Was that too snarky? Well, it's been a snarkadelic week for Democrats, so hopefully you'll excuse my excess. Let's just get on with the rest of the column, shall we?

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Speaking of snark, we have an Honorable Mention to hand out to Pennsylvania state senator Daylin Leach, for calling Republicans on the carpet for nakedly admitting that their voter ID law was (no surprise) all about winning elections for Republicans. Leach's response: "If you have to stop people voting to win elections, your ideas suck."

As previously mentioned, it's been a snarky week. Another Honorable Mention goes out to Representative Luis Gutierrez for his presentation about Arizona's immigration law on the House floor this week. Gutierrez used the "happy couple" Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez to make a point: "Because I’m not a trained Arizona official, I somehow got that backwards. Actually, Ms. Gomez, of Texas, has helped Mr. Bieber, of Canada, learn all about his adopted country. Justin, when you perform in Phoenix, remember to bring your papers." He then went on to offer up other examples (such as Geraldo Rivera and Ted Koppel), before concluding with: "the point is simple. The idea that any government official can determine who belongs in America and who doesn’t simply by looking at them is completely ridiculous, unfair and un-American." This was a brilliant way to frame the argument, and deserves a round of applause.

But the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is none other than President Barack Obama, who gained two major (if partial) victories this week in the Supreme Court, on the Arizona law and on Obamacare. Obama was careful to not appear too football-spikey (or end-zone-dancey, take your pick) in his address after the Obamacare court ruling was announced, but both of these rulings are a clear victory for Obama.

Because of the court's actions, Republicans have been robbed of two lines of attack they were depending on in the upcoming election: "Obama's just wasted his time" while in office, and "the constitutional law professor doesn't understand the Constitution." Neither will be deployed by the right wing echo chamber now, which is a relief.

Instead, perhaps they'll dust off a tactic from fifty years ago, and begin screaming "Impeach John Roberts!" Boy, that'd certainly be amusing, wouldn't it?

See, it's tough this week to avoid snark. Oh, well, nothing to do but drop these little snark-bomblets and move along....

[Congratulate President Barack Obama on the White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

There weren't a whole lot of disappointing Democrats this week, but one group does deserve singling out. Seventeen Democrats in the House voted with Republicans to hold a sitting member of the president's cabinet in contempt of Congress. This is an unprecedented step, but one entirely expected by Republicans trying to gin up some sort of scandal in an election year.

Many Democrats staged a walkout during the vote, in protest. Which reminds me, everyone who walked out certainly deserves an Honorable Mention this week. But perhaps because of a threat by the National Rifle Association to use this vote against House members, 17 Democrats not only stayed for the vote, but voted with the Republicans.

All 17 of them (Politico has a convenient list) deserve this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

[See the list, and if your representative appears on it, use the main House page to find their contact info, so you can let him or her know what you think of his or her actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 216 (6/29/12)

But wait -- there's more!

OK, I admit, I've been waiting to use that line for a very specific reason. Barry Becher has sadly passed away. You may not know his name, but if you are of a certain age, you will certainly remember his face from television, as he was a pioneer in the world of infomercials. Becher was the guy who tried to convince America to buy Ginsu knives.

Since this column is all about framing things in snappy ways, we have to at least salute Becher's family, who are reportedly considering carving "But wait, there's more" into his tombstone. In our humble opinion, this would be the greatest epitaph since Mel Blanc's immortal "That's all, folks!"

Humor aside, this week's talking points are (quite obviously) all on one subject. If Roberts had ruled differently, we'd have a much different group of these, today, but thankfully we can come out swinging instead of in a defensive crouch. President Obama -- and Democrats in general -- have done an abysmal job on selling the concept of Obamacare to the country. This is borne out in poll after poll which shows that millions of Americans just have no idea what is contained in the new law. What we have here, to borrow a movie quote, is a failure to communicate.

Which is why we're here, every Friday, of course. So let's get on with it.

 

1
   Obama Cares

This one is so strong, I had to make it the column's title as well. To give full credit where credit is due, I saw this on a Huffington Post comment on another article, and it struck me with both its brilliance and its simplicity. The best talking points are the simplest one, and for the life of me, I can't see how this could be made any easier to understand while at the same time drawing such a stark contrast with the opposition.

"I am struck in the entire fight over the Affordable Care Act that Republicans may look back and regret one tactical error -- tying the president so closely to the legislation. They've used the term 'Obamacare' so often that now even the president accepts the label. But, years from now, this will only serve to remind people exactly who made their lives better and who was against it. In fact, I'd go even further and suggest a new campaign slogan for the president -- a simple bumpersticker with two words on it: 'Obama Cares.' Obama does care, even if Republicans don't. If I were the president, I'd be proud to run on that slogan."

 

2
   Taxing nonsense

It took a few hours, but the Republican spin (other than the naked rage directed at John Roberts) finally settled on the argument: "It's a TAX!!! Obama TAXED everyone!!! Run for the hills!!!" Or something like that, it's hard to tell at times. Fortunately, this is nonsense, and quite easy to debunk.

"The Republican argument that this is somehow the biggest tax ever levied on the middle class is nothing but horse manure. Let's look at who will not be paying this tax, shall we? Do you have health insurance, either through your employer or by purchasing it? Then you will not be taxed. Even if you don't have health insurance, are you too poor to afford it? Then you will not be taxed. Do you make so little money that you don't pay federal income taxes? Then you will not be taxed. There -- that takes care of roughly 98 percent of the population. Which leaves two percent of Americans who will have to pay this new tax, because they can indeed afford health insurance, but refuse to buy it. What this tax means is that these folks will no longer be able to continue their free ride -- with the rest of us footing the bill in higher premiums -- without their paying a price for doing so. Republicans are trying to scare everyone into thinking they'll have to pay a new tax, but 98 percent of Americans will be completely exempt from it -- a fact they fail to mention."

 

3
   Whatever happened to "personal responsibility"?

This is a good GOP talking point to throw back in their face. We've actually got more than one of these here today.

"The Republican Party, as I recall, used to stand for 'personal responsibility' -- which is why the mandate idea originally came from the Heritage Foundation in the first place. Quoting from the document which suggested the idea: 'The requirement to obtain basic insurance would have to be enforced. The easiest way to monitor compliance might be for households to furnish proof of insurance when they file their tax returns.' The Heritage Foundation went on to state that the enforcement would likely be in the form of 'a fine.' See? Republicans used to decry freeloaders who, by their irresponsibility, caused the rest of us to pay higher prices. Again, quoting from the Heritage document: 'Americans with sufficient means would no longer be able to be "free riders" on society by avoiding sensible health insurance expenditures and relying on others to pay for care in an emergency or in retirement.' They came up with the idea of penalizing these so-called 'free riders' in order to incentivize personal responsibility among the citizenry. It's sad to see how low the GOP has sunk -- because now, they're actually defending the freeloaders and championing 'personal irresponsibility.' How times have changed, eh?"

 

4
   Replace with what?

Another former talking point from the right to fling back in their faces.

"After Obamacare passed, the Republicans made much political hay over their plans to, quote, repeal and replace, unquote, the new law. They've made lots of noise and had many a tantrum over the 'repeal' part of that slogan, but we've heard nary a word about what they would replace it with. You want to repeal ending the pre-existing condition loophole for insurance companies? What would you replace it with? You want to repeal allowing children on their parents' health insurance? What would you replace it with? You want to repeal fixing the donut hole for seniors' prescription drug benefits? What are you going to enact in its place? You want to repeal the rule that forces insurance companies to send rebates out instead of just shoveling more money into CEO pay? So you're for profits over actual health care. You want to repeal free preventative care? Are you sure about that? You want to return to the days where insurance companies could set lifetime caps or just kick you off their coverage if you got sick? And replace it with what, exactly? Nothing? Republicans have had two years now to come up with a plan of their own which accomplishes all this. They haven't. Mitt Romney had a plan, and it's now called Obamacare. Mitt doesn't like to be reminded of this, but he doesn't see to have any new plan that I've heard of. So, to sum up: after two years' time, the Republicans have no plan. That's because they never really meant 'repeal and replace' -- they just meant the repeal part."

 

5
   But Fox News said...

OK, we can't resist any more, we're just going to turn the rest of the column over to pure snark. This one is handy, say, for a Democratic politician being interviewed on Fox News, whenever a moment of levity is called for...

"Are you sure about that? I heard differently on Fox News -- and aren't they always right? Even CNN agreed with them, from what I remember."

 

6
   You already blew that argument, didn't you?

Republicans used to have what they considered a dandy argument against the "gummint takeover" of health insurance, but now this argument doesn't hold much water any more -- through their own doing. The argument was, in a nutshell, that the big, bad Democrats were "putting government between the patient and the doctor." Since then, Republicans have done exactly that, in some pretty shocking ways. Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley showed every other Democrat exactly how to shoot this argument down, using the weapon of Republicans' own actions, in a recent interview:

The only healthcare mandate they [Republicans] can embrace are transvaginal probes for women.

 

7
   It's all right, it's all right.

And finally, a catchall phrase to keep handy, when faced with Republican fulminations and tornado-quality spinning, this week.

"Really? You're saying the court decision was a big win for conservatives? That's really what you're going with? Wow. So Napoleon's greatest victory was actually Waterloo, I guess? Hey, as the late, great John Lennon sang: 'Whatever gets you through the night.' "

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: Democrats For Progress
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

169 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [216] -- Obama Cares”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    okay, i'll indulge in partisan analysis for the intellectual exercise:

    a simple bumpersticker with two words on it: 'Obama Cares.' Obama does care, even if Republicans don't. If I were the president, I'd be proud to run on that slogan."

    which reminds me, it's been quite awhile since you had a bumper sticker contest. since it's a presidential election year, personally i think we're due for one sometime soon.

    Republicans are trying to scare everyone into thinking they'll have to pay a new tax, but 98 percent of Americans will be completely exempt from it

    that actually transitions nicely from "tax the 1%" (people who make more money and pay less taxes than the rest of us) to "tax the 2%" (people who can legitimately afford health care and insist on the rest of us footing the bill for their emergencies).

    the mandate idea originally came from the Heritage Foundation in the first place. [snip] after two years' time, defending the freeloaders and championing 'personal irresponsibility.'

    so.... if it IS a tax, it's one the republicans proposed, supported and (in massachusetts) passed, and are now using to protect the freeloading 2%.

    they never really meant 'repeal and replace' -- they just meant the repeal part."

    this could be re-stated as a challenge. if they REALLY want to replace it (not just erase it), there's no rule saying they can't craft legitimate substitute legislation. that being the case, why haven't they?

    I heard differently on Fox News

    i missed the meaning of this. my snark detector must be on the fritz.

    The only healthcare mandate they [Republicans] can embrace are transvaginal probes for women.

    now THAT i understood. i don't see many men making this point, but it could be a winner.

    So Napoleon's greatest victory was actually Waterloo, I guess?

    ...and you said you wouldn't be doing any end zone dances ;)

    personally, i wonder whether perhaps roberts was showing that he has a heart, and realizing that a few of the good things that Obamacare has accomplished might be worth allowing some of the bad to continue - i.e. he framed it in a way which spins it as negative, and which also continues to cut the scope of the commerce and necessary/proper clauses, but who knows, maybe the guy actually has a heart and doesn't want children with pre-existing conditions to needlessly suffer.

    i know it's an odd concept to consider, but maybe ROBERTS cares.

    ~joshua

  2. [2] 
    dsws wrote:

    i missed the meaning of this. my snark detector must be on the fritz.

    Dewey defeats Truman.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/dewey-defeats-truman-obama-photoshop-cnn-photo_n_1634417.html

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Joshua -

    i missed the meaning of this. my snark detector must be on the fritz.

    Here you go. Enjoy.

    :-)

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Joshua -

    Hmmm... bumperstickers... now there's an idea...

    As for the end zone dances, I believe I said that Obama shouldn't be doing any.

    :-)

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Hey, Chris, the first post-CrapCare-ruling poll is out. Likely voters, from Newsweek/DailyBeast:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

    What I find interesting is the support for tort reform, and sales across state lines, etc.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Friday Talking Points [216] -- Obama Cares

    Shouldn't that be OBAMA TAXES???

    {{chortle, chortle}} :D

    Which leaves two percent of Americans who will have to pay this new tax, because they can indeed afford health insurance, but refuse to buy it. What this tax means is that these folks will no longer be able to continue their free ride

    Or, those who have some aversion to insurance for whatever reason...

    "Neddy doesn't buy insurance. He thinks it's too much like gambling."
    -Maude Flanders, The Simpsons

    Yea, I know. What kind of aversion could people have to insurance?? I dunno, but I do know, as Americans, they should have that right...

    I thought the Left was all about personal freedom??

    I mean, the Left will kowtow to Muslims up and down the line. Hell a blind Muslim can take a HORSE into a restaurant, because she has a religious aversion to dogs...

    But, by gods, we're going to FORCE every American into line by making them purchase insurance and broccoli.. And, by gods, we'll tax them to death if they don't!!

    Just ya'all keep in mind one thing....

    ObamaCare/Tax is going to expand the IRS by 16000 new enforcement Agents and a budget increase of 10 BILLION (Yea, with a 'B') dollars...

    And ya'all want to think that THAT is a good thing???

    I tell ya, liberals sure have changed...

    Michale....

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    What I find interesting is the support for tort reform, and sales across state lines, etc.

    Yea, it's interesting.

    Two GOP Proposals..

    Two EFFECTIVE Proposals...

    And the Democrats turned a deaf ear to them...

    Without those two proposals, HealthCare costs will NEVER go down...

    Michale.....

  8. [8] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Well, after CrapCare is repealed, those very simple common-sense solutions are gonna be back on the table, Michale. And they're got support from the majority of voters. So Dems are gonna be a little hard-pressed to continue fighting against them.

  9. [9] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    The CrapCare ruling didn't fly too well in battleground Florida: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=3c025172-d766-4ce7-928f-01f11c9c0671

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    WOW.. And I thought I get up early! :D

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK And the SAGA begins...

    Here's the URL once again...

    http://tinyurl.com/7acn4mg

    At 0700, the surveillance system begins straight video recording, so anyone who wants a memento of this momentous day, in the form of an AVI file, feel free to ask. :D

    Enjoy...

    Michale.....

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    As an added bonus, so that there is no mistaking I am wearing the shirt... :D

    http://tinyurl.com/d3q487y

    I am giving everyone access to another surveillance camera. :D

    Same user and PW from the other one. :D

    Enjoy....

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    it asks for a username and password. what do i put?

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    same as the other cam.. cw and obama

    Michale...

  15. [15] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Whups ... I wrote this on the other post so you might not have seen, Michale, so reposting here. I was able to log on and just have to say ... the tank top is a nice touch.

    Well played, sir!

    -David

    p.s. Chris- Here's how I framed health care to someone online recently (which incorporates a number of your points:

    Everybody pays something (except those below the poverty level). If you already have health insurance, don't worry, you're paying. No penalty. If you don't, then now you're going to have to chip in. No more freeloading!

    Excellent summary of health care talking points, Chris!

    If I were Obama, I would say something like: "You can call it what you want, a penalty or a tax, but regardless of what you call it, what it means is that you'll no longer be able to freeload on the system."

  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    how many times so far has someone asked you to explain?

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Dewey defeats Truman.

    "Meanwhile, MSNBC president Phil Griffin sent a congratulatory email to staff. (MSNBC, unlike its rivals, got the ruling right.)"

    ho-hum, boring. that's just the nature of tv news reporting, and i use the word "news" loosely. if it had gone the other way, fox and cnn would have congratulated themselves for getting the news right (and sooner), while deriding the others for failing to report the truth, perhaps holding out hope that the ruling would end differently.

    i happen to think that for most it's rarely about partisanship, but considering the news networks' self-congratulatory attitude, it's easy to understand the point of view that it is.

    ~josua

  18. [18] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    nypoet so.... if it IS a tax, it's one the republicans proposed, supported and (in massachusetts) passed, and are now using to protect the freeloading 2%.

    Nothing wrong with a state mandate, if that's what the majority of state residents want. And, if I might remind my liberal friends, Republicans weren't the ones who were nuts enough to force a mandate on a majority of Americans who didn't want it. That would be Pelosi/Reid/O's brilliant move.

    this could be re-stated as a challenge. if they REALLY want to replace it (not just erase it), there's no rule saying they can't craft legitimate substitute legislation. that being the case, why haven't they?

    Republicans are opposed to having the federal government handle it. So why would they propose a federal replacement for a federal program?

    I think, since the majority of Americans support tort reform, and opening sales across state lines, the Republicans are likely to propose that the federal government get out of it so that the states can create their own RomneyCare, or single-payer, or Vermont-like program, or whatever other program a given state feels would best serve its residents.

  19. [19] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Michale: WOW.. And I thought I get up early! :D

    I'm a natural-born insomniac. If I sleep four hours a day, it's a lot. And that's only because I'm getting older now. I use to sleep about two-and-half-hours.

    Hey, you've got to turn around and face the camera every now and again. I still can't see the front of that tee-shirt. And where's the banner across the store that says "I'm only wearing this t-shirt because I lost a bet"? Do I have to think of everything? ;D

  20. [20] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I think, since the majority of Americans support tort reform, and opening sales across state lines, the Republicans are likely to propose that the federal government get out of it so that the states can create their own RomneyCare, or single-payer, or Vermont-like program, or whatever other program a given state feels would best serve its residents.

    okay then, if your goal is to achieve this end, rather than JUST try to undo what obama has done (including preventing an insurer from denying coverage to a sick child???), write it as a phase-out by exemption. as soon as a state writes a legitimate health care solution of its own, it stops having to follow the federal mandate. to some extent this solution is already part of the law itself.

    one way or the other, a repeal that is NOT directly tied to a viable replacement will be more reviled than Obamacare could ever hope to be.

    I'm a natural-born insomniac. If I sleep four hours a day, it's a lot. And that's only because I'm getting older now. I use to sleep about two-and-half-hours.

    that so? i'm in the NYC area tonight, hanging out with a friend in the Village. drop an e-mail if you're nearby. same username as here (at) yahoo (dot) com.

    joshua

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    OK Look NOW... :D

    Michale....

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    I'm a natural-born insomniac. If I sleep four hours a day, it's a lot. And that's only because I'm getting older now. I use to sleep about two-and-half-hours.

    Yea, same here.. If I sleep til 0700, I feel like I wasted half the day.. :D

    Mon, Tue, Wed my days usually starts at around 0500.. Thu thru Sun, I am up by 0230-0300... :D

    Like this morning :D

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I caught yer comments over at Dewey...

    Yea, no half-assed measures for me.. If I am going to humiliate myself, I am gonna go all the way! :D You recall Galt, I am sure?? :D

    I have had a few choice looks and comments. I'll go into more detail tonight or tomorrow :D

    Michale..

  24. [24] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Chris,

    You might take a close look at the dissent. Apparently the conservatives were eager to throw out the entire act, even the parts they weren't finding "unconstitutional" because, supposedly, they wouldn't have been enacted without the "unconstitutional" bits.

    Maybe Roberts balked at so naked a declaration that SCOTUS decides what the law is, constitutional or not. Personally I regret that. It would have made things crystal clear for everyone so that the country can start dealing with it. Now the Republicans will continue spin SCOTUS as honoring the constitution while being attacked for purely partisan reasons. And SCOTUS will continue to unravel our democracy without any real effort to stop them.

    We've had a partisan SCOTUS before. But we've never had a concerted half-century effort to pack the court specifically in order to overcome the democratic process before. Combined with an ideologically rigid and amoral political party acting in concert with a privately owned major propaganda network, the U.S. is in for some very bad times.—For a long time to come.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Just so we're clear.. The Shirt Day was just one day, right???

    I don't want to leave everyone without an explanation til NEXT weekend.

    I'll leave the cams accessible thru Sunday afternoon, but just wanted to confirm I could go back to my normal attire. :D

    Michale.....

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the accepted definition of "Partisan SCOTUS" being a SCOTUS that doesn't rule the way one wants?? :D

    Michale.....

  27. [27] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    nypoet: okay then, if your goal is to achieve this end, rather than JUST try to undo what obama has done (including preventing an insurer from denying coverage to a sick child???), write it as a phase-out by exemption. as soon as a state writes a legitimate health care solution of its own, it stops having to follow the federal mandate. to some extent this solution is already part of the law itself.

    one way or the other, a repeal that is NOT directly tied to a viable replacement will be more reviled than Obamacare could ever hope to be.

    That's not gonna correct the biggest part of the pricing problem, i.e., the federal government's insufferable overload of regulations. This is the one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country. And unless those federal handcuffs are removed, insurance companies are not going to be able to customize programs for states. If you want prices to drop, you have to allow good-old-fashioned competition. Companies and hospitals can't do that with the federal government dictating every move they make.

    Thank you for the invite, poet, but (1) I'm out at the beach for the rest of the summer, and (2) I have a rule about never meeting any of my online friends, as I'm convinced they're all potential serial killers; particularly the liberal ones. ;D

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    (2) I have a rule about never meeting any of my online friends, as I'm convinced they're all potential serial killers; particularly the liberal ones. ;D

    "OUCH!! And the ref takes a point away!!!"
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR, LIAR

    :D

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Michale: OK Look NOW... :D

    LOL! I missed it. Okay, at least tell me what it says on the tee-shirt.

    Meanwhile, I love being in your store with you. This is so much fun. I'm meeting all your customers. (I'm also keeping an eye on them, making sure no one sticks a laptop down their pants.) And I LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE your shop. I would love to open some kind of a shop, with the doors wide open and people going by all day. That is such a wonderful setup you have going there. I'm jealous.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK NOW... :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Hahahahaha! Good timing. But I still can't read the shirt. Something about Obama GOT. Obama got what?

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    OBAMA GOT OSAMA :D

    Meanwhile, I love being in your store with you. This is so much fun. I'm meeting all your customers. (I'm also keeping an eye on them, making sure no one sticks a laptop down their pants.) And I LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE your shop. I would love to open some kind of a shop, with the doors wide open and people going by all day. That is such a wonderful setup you have going there. I'm jealous.

    It's a lot of fun. And being at a Flea Market, my overhead is about a fifth of what a regular shop would be..

    If you would like a "tour" of my shop:

    http://www.pctechbytes.net/showthread.php/47244-A-Tour-Of-My-Friends-Computer-Clinic

    :D

    Michale.....

  33. [33] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Just so we're clear.. The Shirt Day was just one day, right???

    I thought it was a week :)

    Kidding ... You're absolutely right. Just one day. Looks like you've shut down for the day so you can now burn the shirt ... or whatever you had in mind for it

    -David

  34. [34] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I have a rule about never meeting any of my online friends, as I'm convinced they're all potential serial killers; particularly the liberal ones.

    wow, xenophobic much? that's also wrong because ideologically i'm not consistently one side or the other, closer overall to the center than the left. i believe as barry ritholtz does that the left and right are largely a relic of times past, a distraction from the larger conflict between giant institutions and individuals. so i largely agree with the right about federal control, and with the left about corporate regulation. currently both the federal government and certain corporations have been allowed to get far too big and powerful, and they collectively threaten the liberty of our entire nation.

    also, i'm not a serial killer.

    yet.

    ;)

  35. [35] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    also, i'm not a serial killer

    That's what they all say. ;D

  36. [36] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [6] -

    The IRS is not hiring tens of thousands of new agents. It's a false scare story from the right that was debunked years ago. It just ain't true, sorry.

    As for the video, if you've got a still shot I can post it here for all to see. If you'd prefer not, I can understand that, but I'm offering the server space if you're into it.

    :-)

    Chris1962 [27] -

    Heh. Heh heh.

    I know what you did last summer.

    [Couldn't resist...]

    -CW

  37. [37] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Note To All Commenters -

    I have just OKed a bunch of comments that had been mistakenly marked as spam.

    I apologize for this, as some of these comments were over a week old.

    I don't know why they're being trapped (no links in them), but I do promise to do a much better job of searching the spam queue to see if there are any valid comments being trapped there from now on.

    Again, my apologies. It was a software problem, not any sort of problem with any of your comments. Just to be clear -- you folks did nothing wrong at all.

    Hopefully, I'll deal with these as they come in from now on. Thanks for your patience.

    -CW

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kidding ... You're absolutely right. Just one day. Looks like you've shut down for the day so you can now burn the shirt ... or whatever you had in mind for it

    I am not sure about it. More on that in a few, once I get settled at home (IE Beer in hand :D)..

    But I will say that, if I DO wear it again, I am going to have it modified..

    It will say OBAMA GOT OSAMA on the front..

    And on the back, I am going to put BUT BUSH MADE IT POSSIBLE..

    :D

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [26],

    OK. You are wrong.

    Four (at least) of the five Republican Justices saw fit to determine that even though constitutional the ACA should be thrown out. So...

    The Republican Justices decided to determine if the law should be, apart from whether its constitutional, that is a political decision.

    The Republican Justices decided that it should not.

    And, of course, the Republican Justices "just happened" to take the side of the Republicans in making that determination.

    That is taking sides in a political decision, which in the English language is known as being partisan, as in "being a party to".

    Now, I know cynicism and ridicule is a favored tactic among conservatives, especially, as is so often the case, when the facts do not support them, but, for the record, you are not entitled to your own facts or your own definitions of the words in the English language.

    Any other questions?

  40. [40] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Chris1962 [27],

    Insurance relies on pooling risks and spreading them over the largest and most diverse pool possible. In fact, business in general recognizes the increased efficiency of consolidation and the "economies of scale." Your insistence that there must be multiple state-based insurance pools makes each pool more likely to become insolvent, increasing risks for all pools thereby driving up prices. Its an ideological position that's counter-productive and with no logical factual basis.

    In addition healthcare consumers, unlike other consumers, do not and cannot be expected to pay the full costs of the services they receive including overhead like any other consumer. Because unlike other businesses you cannot ammotize the costs of an MRI machine just among patients who happen to need it now. Anyone might need it. But if only those who currently require it had to pay for it neither hospitals nor patients would be able to afford it and it wouldn't be available to anyone not just those who would need it in the future. So healthcare services, not just insurance, also attempt to spread risks to reduce costs.

    Then there's the matter of healthcare being literally a matter of life and death. Lawsuits are insufficient remedial remedies when you're dead. I, for one, would certainly hope that a life threatening zero-margin-for-error business would be the most heavily regulated.
    And, as I said yesterday, healthcare is not amenable to "good old-fashioned competition." Its a unique business unlike selling shoes, cars, or politicians and conservative one-size-fits-all "solutions" and talking-points don't and won't work.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    The IRS is not hiring tens of thousands of new agents. It's a false scare story from the right that was debunked years ago. It just ain't true, sorry.

    Cite???

    I seem to recall the source I quoted was fairly recent. I might be wrong on that...

    As for the video, if you've got a still shot I can post it here for all to see. If you'd prefer not, I can understand that, but I'm offering the server space if you're into it.

    Lemme get to work tomorrow and I'll find a suitable for framing candidate...

    :D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    Any other questions?

    Nope...

    Just an observation....

    The Individual Mandate Survives As A Tax,
    http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Home/Daily-Reports/2012/June/28/supreme-court-health-law-decision-day.aspx

    You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts..

    :D

    Michale......

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    No matter HOW you try to spin it, no matter HOW you try to phrase it, the Mandate is now a TAX....

    Ya'all won....

    Quite trying to decide what the definition of 'is' is...

    The mandate is now a tax....

    Get over it...

    Michale.....

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, now that I have the pre-requisite 3-5 beers in me, I can go with an analysis of the day...

    First off, let me be clear that I am not pointing any fingers at anyone but me...

    It was probably a mistake to drag politics into my place of business.. Being a customer-oriented business, I have to do my utmost to make ALL my customers at ease...

    Black people loved my shirt...

    Rednecks, not so much...

    I am sure ya'all would agree that, if I had worn an OBAMA SUCKS PANTHER BALLS shirt, the reverse would have been true.. :D

    And, while it is probably not connected in any way, I did not make a single sale or repair today... :^/ I have averaged about $1500 a weekend the last five weeks and today I didn't do diddley squat...

    Again, probably not connected, but...... :D

    One of the guys went totally ballistic, wondering what the frack was I thinking. But he's kinda a jerk anyways, so no big loss..

    Another guy, a redneck named "Bubba" (I shit you not) usually bugs the hell out of me with idle chatter while I am trying to work. He took one, very obvious, look at my shirt and didn't talk to me the rest of the day...

    So, in THAT regard, it was a definite PLUS. :D

    Got a few compliments of the shirt.. But I did notice a few of the guys I deal with on a regular basis were a tad more subdued... :D

    So, I think I'll post a sign tomorrow, saying "I LOST A BET... THAT IS ALL"

    :D

    All in all, it was a fun experience.. Always wanted to walk in the shoes of a Liberal... Sadly, they just don't fit. :D

    Michale.....

  45. [45] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Lew: Your insistence that there must be multiple state-based insurance pools

    I didn't say there must be. And I'm not talking about the insurance industry as it presently exists. Let's do a for-instance, k? Make believe tort reform was enacted, and sales across state borders were enabled, and all the federal regulations were lifted from the industry. And you're the head of an insurance company. What would you do?

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Make believe tort reform was enacted, and sales across state borders were enabled, and all the federal regulations were lifted from the industry. And you're the head of an insurance company. What would you do?

    Work my ass off to entice as many customers by offering the mostest awesomest Insurance Package in the universe!!!

    Competition serves both the private sector AND the public at large..

    The only think that competition DOESN'T serve is government...

    Which is why the government bends over backwards to prevent or stifle competition...

    Michale.....

  47. [47] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    So, I think I'll post a sign tomorrow, saying "I LOST A BET... THAT IS ALL"

    LOL. Isn't that what I told you to do in the first place? Did you not read my post? ;D

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which is why the government bends over backwards to prevent or stifle competition...

    I believe the experiment into that (USSR) failed and failed miserably....

    Chang:"We need breathing room!"
    Kirk:"Earth. Hitler. 1939."

    -Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

    Michale....

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    LOL. Isn't that what I told you to do in the first place? Did you not read my post? ;D

    Yea, ya did.. But you said to do it DURING the bet.. The rule was that I could only do it AFTER the bet... :D

    Google JAY LENO and PHONY MUSTACHE.... :D

    Michale....

  50. [50] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [44] -

    I would just like to lead a GIANT ROUND OF APPLAUSE and a STANDING OVATION here at CW.com Industries headquarters, for your day "walking in the shoes of a liberal."

    You lost the bet, you paid up. Higher praise there cannot be.

    For all the liberals here, imagine having to wear a pro-Bush T-shirt at your place of business and then not being allowed to explain it until the next day. Picture this happening in, oh, say, a San Francisco neighborhood, or perhaps the Chicago area where Obama came from.

    Michale, for above-and-beyond-the-call-of-duty not only wearing the shirt in Florida, but also for putting video of it live on the internet for the rest of us to enjoy, we're striking a very special Most Impressive Commenter Who Is Not A Big Fan Of Obama award this week. Maybe I should have added "Ever" at the end of that, but "MICWINABFOO" rolls so nicely off the tongue as it is...

    Seriously, I tip my hat in your direction. Well done!

    :-)

    -CW

  51. [51] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Michale: Work my ass off to entice as many customers by offering the mostest awesomest Insurance Package in the universe!!!

    Ah, we've got a Big Picture guy here. Right you are. Better yet, offer a wide variety of the mostest awesomest insurance packages in the universe: some tailored to the indestructible youngins; some tailored to parents of indestructible youngins; some tailored to women... hell, I'd throw a Christian package in there, if I were a really good strategic planner who knew my target audience.

    I'd even offer an option for customers to contribute a few extra dollars for high-maintenance patients, to help those folks keep their costs down.

  52. [52] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Thanks, I had forgotten that the Jimmy/Jay mustache bet was what gave us the idea here for the "no explanation" clause. I saw that when it happened, and Jay was freaking hilarious since he could not say a word about the cheesy 'stache...

    -CW

  53. [53] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    CW: For all the liberals here, imagine having to wear a pro-Bush T-shirt at your place of business and then not being allowed to explain it until the next day. Picture this happening in, oh, say, a San Francisco neighborhood, or perhaps the Chicago area where Obama came from.

    ROFLMAO!!! I join you in your applause and ovation for Michale. The man could've gotten hurt. He risked life and limb — not to mention sales — to honor his bet. Gotta salute a man of integrity like that.

    Me? I would've hung the banner and worn half a t-shirt with NAR-NARNEE-NAR-NARRRRR! printed on the back. Admittedly, I'm not half the man Michale is. ;D

  54. [54] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    nypoet: which reminds me, it's been quite awhile since you had a bumper sticker contest. since it's a presidential election year, personally i think we're due for one sometime soon.

    A bumper sticker contest??? Hey, that was before my time, here on the CW board. What fun! Let's do a bumper sticker contest, with no limit on submissions.

    O's got "FORWARD"? Here's mine, off the top of my head:

    (logo) ROMNEY
    AMERICA FIRST

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    You seem to put healthcare in the context of must have/life or death type thing and therefore not a business commodity..

    That's how you think of it. That's how many people think of it. But many other people really don't think of it at all..

    Put in another context.. If you are shopping around for Car Insurance for a beat up POS Rambler (Oooooo I'm gonna pay for that one! :D) you would be less likely to choose a Premium Cadillac plan. If you were shopping around for Car Insurance for your cheery mint El Camino, you would be less likely to chose a budget bare-bones plan...

    There is logic in looking at health-insurance as just another commodity...

    The companies that better serve their customers will do the best...

    Let the Free Market work and it WILL work... Not always smoothly, but it WILL work..

    CW

    You lost the bet, you paid up. Higher praise there cannot be.

    Thanx :D I am a firm believer in the IT IS WHAT IT IS philosophy.. And if I can have a little fun, too.. Well why not. :D

    Seriously, I tip my hat in your direction. Well done!

    Danke... :D

    Michale.....

  56. [56] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    CW: a simple bumpersticker with two words on it: 'Obama Cares.'

    The problem with that line is that our public servant Obama quite obviously does not care what the American people — his bosses — want; or, in the case of the "mandate," DON'T want. The Left doesn't seem to understand that the issue is not about what's IN the CrapCare program. People know what's in it. The issue is federal power and control. People don't want the government having this level of control. So you guys can talk about what's IN CrapCare until the cows come home, but it will only result in continuing to miss the point.

    "...Just over half (51%) of Americans continue to believe that the government is more of a threat to individual rights than a protector of them.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that only 34% of Adults in this country regard the federal government more as a protector of individual rights...."
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2012/51_see_federal_government_as_threat_to_their_rights

    Another point the Left keeps missing is that when Romney says he'll repeal it, that's all folks wanna hear. They're not half as concerned with how Republicans will REPLACE it, because "I'll repeal it" translates into "I'll take the government's power/control away and give you your individual freedoms back." That's the singular reason folks have always been against CrapCare. And the Left absolutely did not grasp that message coming out of the great shellacking of 2010.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    CBO reports that ObamaCare will result in a 27 MILLION dollar a year tax increase on the Middle Class...

    Seems like the GOP are the warriors for the Middle Class now, eh? :D

    Michale.....

  58. [58] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Thank you, Justice Roberts.

  59. [59] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Seems like the GOP are the warriors for the Middle Class now, eh?

    fighting hard for the freeloading 2%? making sure the rest of us who live responsibly keep paying for the emergency care of the few who choose to live irresponsibly?

    health care is economically complex because it is part need, part want. some aspects of medical care are as necessary to preserve our lives as food or shelter. other aspects are as vanity-based as designer clothing. but between cardiac arrest and breast augmentation there's a substantial grey area.

    if we are to successfully "promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," we as a nation need to figure out how to distinguish between our needs and our wants.

    reducing regulation of the market for a want like computers or soccer balls tends to result in a successful weeding-out process and an efficient distribution system. deregulation of the market for a need like food, shelter or basic medical care tends to make people homeless, hungry and dead.

    If the GOP would propose an alternative based on smaller state and local governments, that might indeed be a step in the right direction, increasing individual liberty and local flexibility in the distribution of a vital need as the preamble to the constitution demands. however, their stance so far has not progressed far beyond two years ago. at the moment it's just repeal repeal repeal, i.e. "don't get sick, and if you do, die quickly."

  60. [60] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    CBO reports that ObamaCare will result in a 27 MILLION dollar a year tax increase on the Middle Class...

    So, for basically pocket change we get universal health care. And this is somehow bad?

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    So, for basically pocket change we get universal health care. And this is somehow bad?

    "READ MY LIPS. NO NEW TAXES"

    We'll talk again on 7 Nov.. :D

    Michale.....

  62. [62] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    It's bad for O, who swore up and down that the middle class would not be taxed; not one single dime. What's also bad for O is that the majority of Americans do not want this "mandate." They didn't want it when the legislation was being crafted; they didn't want it after the legislation had passed (enter the great shellacking of 2010), and they do not want it now.

  63. [63] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    What's also bad for O is that the majority of Americans do not want this "mandate."

    true. prior to Obamacare being crafted, what most people wanted was not a mandate but a public option. that was the first thing to go.

    "Independents and senior citizens, two groups crucial to the debate, have warmed to the idea of a public option, and are particularly supportive if it would be administered by the states and limited to those without access to affordable private coverage."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    fighting hard for the freeloading 2%? making sure the rest of us who live responsibly keep paying for the emergency care of the few who choose to live irresponsibly?

    Carrying that to the next logical step, how long til Democrats start persecuting and prosecuting fat people???

    Michale.....

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    if we are to successfully "promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," we as a nation need to figure out how to distinguish between our needs and our wants.

    "To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability"

    Sound familiar???

    The problem with the concept is who gets to decide what people's needs are and what people's abilities are???

    There's a reason why communism/socialism doesn't work... It doesn't take into account human nature..

    Michale.....

  66. [66] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It was probably a mistake to drag politics into my place of business.. Being a customer-oriented business, I have to do my utmost to make ALL my customers at ease.

    Sorry to hear that, man.

    I always hate to see the hate from any side. I mean, at the end of the day, it's just politics.

    It's not like it's beer or hockey or Science Fiction or anything important :)

    -David

  67. [67] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Carrying that to the next logical step, how long til Democrats start persecuting and prosecuting fat people???

    being fat (or getting sick, for that matter) is at least partly genetic. i didn't suggest that we should penalize people for being unhealthy. what characterizes the 2% as freeloaders is not that they behave in a way that's bad for their health, lots of people do that. it's that they drag down the rest of society just because they can. they're like the ultra-orthodox in israel who evade taxes and don't do military service, but enjoy the protection of the military and make full use of the services that those taxes were supposed to help pay for.

    you're right, nanny socialism tends not to work because many people tend to become lazy, just as cut-throat capitalism tends not to work because many people become greedy. there needs to be a balance between the interests of society and the interests of individuals. that's why there needs to be balance when it comes to drawing a line between what we're unable to do and what we just don't feel like doing, what we really need to live and what we just want to be more comfortable.

    extremes are easy; they make for good bedtime stories, but they don't work. moderation is hard, messy, amorphous and involves conflict. but it's also the best way to keep our basest natures in check and society from imploding.

    ~joshua

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    "People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures - joined with the similar failures of others - can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
    -Chief Justice Roberts

    David,

    Sorry to hear that, man.

    I always hate to see the hate from any side. I mean, at the end of the day, it's just politics.

    It's not like it's beer or hockey or Science Fiction or anything important :)

    Trooo :D It's not that big of a deal. Live and learn..

    It's funny. That one guy that gave me a hard time.. Turns out he hates Bush more than Obama..

    Yea, he's a Ron Paul fan.. :D

    Joshua,

    being fat (or getting sick, for that matter) is at least partly genetic. i didn't suggest that we should penalize people for being unhealthy. what characterizes the 2% as freeloaders is not that they behave in a way that's bad for their health, lots of people do that. it's that they drag down the rest of society just because they can. they're like the ultra-orthodox in israel who evade taxes and don't do military service, but enjoy the protection of the military and make full use of the services that those taxes were supposed to help pay for.

    The same argument could be made for ANY activity that conflicts with social order...

    My point with the mandate has always been, if Government can compel this, then there is absolutely NOTHING stopping them from compelling ANYTHING....

    The government might start enforcing "politeness"...

    "Being miserable and treating other people like shit is every New Yorker's god-given right."
    -Lenny, GHOSTBUSTERS II

    :D

    Michale.....

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww crap.....

    I hate it when I do something stoopid

    Michale.....

    [Ed note: I fixed it for you...don't forget to close those html tags, people!]

  70. [70] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    nypoet: true. prior to Obamacare being crafted, what most people wanted was not a mandate but a public option. that was the first thing to go.

    Well, you can thank O for that, since he's the guy who sold it out to the insurance lobbyist in the seventh week of his presidency, using Baucus as the middle man to get the lobbyist's "mandate" in there, instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PwqSCJmbxk

    As for whomever wanted a public option back then, they don't want it now. According to the latest Gallup poll (June 29th), only 25% want the government's role in health care expanded. And only 13% even want to keep CrapCare in place. The majority (52%) want to either repeal it entirely or repeal parts of it, and I think one can safely assume the "part" they're talking about is the infamous mandate.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    [Ed note: I fixed it for you...don't forget to close those html tags, people!]

    Thank you Oh Great And Powerful OZ :D

    Michale.....

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't take my word for how bad ObamaCare is..

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Victory-for-Obamacare-A-by-shamus-cooke-120702-694.html

    Michale.....

  73. [73] 
    akadjian wrote:

    “Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional.” - U.S. Senator Rand Paul

    Ummm, no Rand ... I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what makes it constitutional.

    -David

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ummm, no Rand ... I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what makes it constitutional.

    I would have to agree with ya, David..

    If the SCOTUS says it's Constitutional, then that's pretty final word on the issue...

    Just as when the SCOTUS says it's a tax.. Well, that makes it a tax... :D

    Michale.....

  75. [75] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Just as when the SCOTUS says it's a tax.. Well, that makes it a tax... :D

    Call it whatever you want ... it doesn't apply to 99% of the people.

    Did you know that ACA also allows the FDA to approve more generic drugs? To reduce costs?

    -David

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Call it whatever you want ... it doesn't apply to 99% of the people.

    Unless those 99% decide they don't want health insurance..

    Which was their right... Pre-Obama

    Michale.....

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Call it whatever you want ... it doesn't apply to 99% of the people.

    But the point is, the 1% that the tax WOULD apply to would be the one's who make less than $250K per year...

    The people that Obama PROMISED would not pay more in taxes..

    Regardless of the tax, ObamaCare will guarantee that millions of Americans will likely LOSE the insurance they have in favor of lesser bare-bones quality plans..

    Another issue that Obama PROMISED would never happen..

    Michale.....

  78. [78] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But the point is, the 1% that the tax WOULD apply to would be the one's who make less than $250K per year.

    If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you would be charged a penalty.

    Basically, the people trying to cheat the system would pay the penalty.

    I'm ok with that.

    -David

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    And who determines whether or not someone who makes less than $250K a year can afford insurance???

    The government...

    Do you want that kind of power help by President Romney???

    What about people who simply don't want insurance??

    Don't they have that right???

    Michale.....

  80. [80] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    New Reuters/Ipsos poll out:

    "In the new poll, more than half of all registered voters - 53 percent - said they were more likely to vote for their member of Congress if he were running on a platform calling for repeal, up from 46 percent before the ruling...."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/us-usa-campaign-healthcare-idUSBRE85S14820120701

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    I just want ya'all to make sure you understand what ya'all are advocating..

    You are advocating that, for the good of society as a whole, the US Government can force people to purchase a certain product or face a tax if they refuse...

    Now, if ya'all are fine with that, then OK.....

    But don't come whining when a GOP government wants to force every American citizen to purchase a firearm and training or else face a tax..

    You reap what you sow....

    "Go cry in yer coffee but don't coming bitchin' to me..."
    -Billy Joel, BIG SHOT

    :D

    Michale.....

  82. [82] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Michale: But don't come whining when a GOP government wants to force every American citizen to purchase a firearm and training or else face a tax..

    You reap what you sow....

    So true, Michale. The Left forgets that that door swings both ways.

    If I might add a point, however: congress has always had this ability. And any congress who's nuts enough to abuse their taxing powers like that will invariably pay a price on election day. That's where We, the People, come in. It's up to us corral power-hungry public servants like that. We're the "checks and balances" in this type of scenario.

  83. [83] 
    akadjian wrote:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/us-usa-campaign-healthcare-idUSBRE85S14820120701

    From the same poll:

    Among all registered voters, support for the law rose to 48 percent in the online survey conducted after Thursday's ruling, up from 43 percent before the court decision. Opposition slipped to 52 percent from 57 percent.

    I believe the reason for this is the additional publicity around what the bill actually does: a lot of good things.

    -David

  84. [84] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Here's a great listen where Mitt Romney explains the mandate to a meeting of the Heritage Foundation ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTByvLtYIYA&feature=youtu.be

    Or, as he calls it, the Personal Responsibility Principle.

    Obama should just use this PowerPoint ... heheheh :)

    -David

  85. [85] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    David: Among all registered voters, support for the law rose to 48 percent in the online survey conducted after Thursday's ruling, up from 43 percent before the court decision. Opposition slipped to 52 percent from 57 percent.

    Except that 53% are still more likely to vote for the candidate who proposes repeal. That's the majority, not 48%.

    I believe the reason for this is the additional publicity around what the bill actually does: a lot of good things.

    This is the mistake the Left continues to make. Everyone knows what's in the bill. That's never been the point of contention. The majority of Americans are against the mandate. Always have been and still are. They don't want the federal government to hold that level of control over them. It's an infringement on their personal, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. The Left STILL does not get that point; not even after the great shellacking of 2010. Instead, you folks just keep telling yourselves that all you have to do is sell the contents of CrapCare, when the "mandate" is the problem.

  86. [86] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Instead, you folks just keep telling yourselves that all you have to do is sell the contents of CrapCare, when the "mandate" is the problem.

    Perhaps ... perhaps not.

    There is a lot of good associated with the bill, however, and people deserve to know the tradeoffs.

    For instance, many people don't know that companies are required to spend 80% of the money they take in on health care ... if not, they must return this money.

    As for the Personal Responsibility Clause ... I agree w/ this guy ... (oh, and Mitt Romney too ... at least 2006 Mitt Romney)

    http://blogs.buffalonews.com/.a/6a00d83451b85a69e2017615e0488e970c-pi

    -David

  87. [87] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Where to begin?

    What SCOTUS said was that the penalty could be considered a tax. It did not say the mandate was a tax. And even if it did the role of SCOTUS is to determine what is and is not constitutional, not what is and is not a tax. Ignoring the facts, spinning the actual decision, and suddenly making SCOTUS an unimpeachable authority out of whole cloth is just the kind of deceitful propaganda typical of conservative positions.

    SCOTUS is not nonpartisan. SCOTUS is not ethical. SCOTUS is not unbiased. SCOTUS's decision does nothing to prove their position. The idea that President Obama lied because a Republican said the penalty could be considered a tax is evidence only to Republicans.

    Even if the penalty is tax it only applies to those wealthy enough to afford their own coverage but who refuse to purchase it and President Obama has been quite clear about his belief and desire to raise taxes on the rich who are not paying their fair share. So taxing wealthy healthcare freeloaders is hardly a lie or a surprise.

    Given that most wealthy people purchase health insurance the increased "tax" applies only to a fraction of a percent of taxpayers, and then only if they voluntarily choose to pay it instead of buying their own coverage. Of course Republicans are outraged anyway, hoping their unjustified, untrue accusations will fool enough low-information voters to do the some good.

    While these same "tax and spend" Republicans have been "raising taxes" by increasing the fines for all sorts of things all over the country.

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    There is a lot of good associated with the bill, however, and people deserve to know the tradeoffs.

    One "Oh Shit" will eliminate a thousand, "That ain't so bad"s...

    Remember, we're talking perception, not reality...

    Michale.....

  89. [89] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Remember, we're talking perception, not reality.

    I don't know about you but I'm talking about reality.

    Health insurance companies not being able to drop people once they get sick is a very big reality.

    You can try to shape perception of this as "anti-freedom" if you want, but the tricks are starting to seem old.

    This is because when conservatives and the Heritage Foundation introduced the idea of a mandate it was an innovative free-market solution to health care. When Obama and Democrats did it, somehow it's a socialist big government power grab.

    It's the same solution folks. Same.

    Gawd ... I can't wait for the debates. Or even anyone asking Money ... err, Romney ... some questions other than FoxNews. Is that why he's been so afraid to do any interviews?

    -David

  90. [90] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [55],

    I didn't say healthcare wasn't a business commodity, I said it wasn't an ordinary business commodity. The insurance business isn't about selling an item or service. Its about people pooling resources in order to spread risks and lower costs. People pay a small regular amount into a pool in return for the pool covering occasional extraordinary expenses. The idea is that while everyone is likely to need to draw on the pool everyone won't need to draw simultaneously or for the same amounts.

    Insurance companies dramatically increase profits by reducing the number of customers as its far more profitable. They try to screen out anyone who might actually have to draw on the pool, if at all possible, because they keep any money that hasn't been used within a given time. That largely defeats the purpose of insurance so most people want a pool where everyone can participate and where no one is skimming off assets for profit.

    Partisan conservative nonsense aside that is what government is for. Conservatives take it as an article of faith that someone must profit off any endeavor. Fair enough. But their bias that it can't be Government that provides a service is based on the desire to inflate costs and profits. The purpose of government is to provide services so that the general population profits. Conservatives rail about "freedom" as a means of preventing the people from doing what the people determine is best for them. The Republican idea of "freedom" is a minority having the freedom to block the will of the majority in order to better exploit them.

    The idea that if you remove all government restraints then the insurance industry will magically turn philanthropic and base their business model on providing everyone healthcare instead of making money is obvious nonsense. But conservatives think wishful thinking is strategic planning and "faith" trumps reality. They're always willing to keep using the same failed policies that have never worked before in the sure and certain knowledge that they will work this time simply because they want them to.

    But the reason trickle-down economics doesn't work is that businesses don't hire as many employees as they can or price their products to get the most customers, they price their products as high as possible and reduce their employees to the minimum possible to get the most profit. Companies don't maintain the lowest prices they can, they maintain the highest prices that return the most profits. Only if they can attract enough customers to make lowering prices more profitable than higher prices will they lower prices. And they will lower them only as far and for as long as that is true.

    Since health insurance is a scheme based on long-term averages and involving extraordinary costs that could be hundreds of thousands per person it isn't possible to have enough competing pools to dramatically reduce prices through competition as its far to expensive for that much competition to ever develop. And far less expensive, and easier, to maintain high prices and fewer customers, which is why we have the system we do today. In spite of the fact that the current insurance model doesn't serve the needs of customers there is no competition from traditional insurance because its far less profitable and conservatives block attempts to create it because it is what people want and would therefore suck the profit out of the current insurance business.

    The "market solutions" so beloved of conservatives are fantasies with no basis in reality at all, promoted because they are fantasies by people whose real goal is to maintain their high profits by insuring that we get the least healthcare while paying the most money. And its certainly worked so far.

  91. [91] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    The idea that if you remove all government restraints then the insurance industry will magically turn philanthropic and base their business model on providing everyone healthcare instead of making money is obvious nonsense.

    Every company is in business to make a profit. Competition is what keeps prices and profits in check. Company-A turning out a better product, for less money, than Company-B is what keeps prices as low as they can be without Companies A and B going out of business.

  92. [92] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Chris1962 [85],

    You are right the mandate is not what people want. It was only legislated to appease Republicans. What people want is a single-payer system because that is the cheapest and least risky.

    What Republicans want is to protect insurance industry profits at the expense of the American people's health. So first they propose the mandate and now they revile it for purely partisan gain offering nothing else except a return to the status quo ante leaving the majority of Americans completely without affordable healthcare.

  93. [93] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Chris1962,

    And that's why prices are so low today? You talk about competition as if it must lower prices and there are no other factors. You offer not one factual argument only vague talking-point generalities and wishful thinking.

  94. [94] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    LewDan: What people want is a single-payer system because that is the cheapest and least risky.

    Not according to the latest Gallup poll. Only 25% want the federal government's role in health care to expand.

  95. [95] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    And that's why prices are so low today?

    Of course not. How can they be? The industry is among the most heavily regulated in the country. If you want prices to come down, you have to take those shackles off and the let the industry freely compete. (I believe I've already said this, a couple of posts up: ease up on the overload of federal regulations; enact tort reform; open sales across state boreders...)

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's the argument against tort reform???

    Michale.....

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's actually ironic...

    When I was growing up (60s and 70s) the Liberals wanted government out of our lives and the Conservatives wanted government's nose in everything...

    In the here and now, the Liberals think that the government is the ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL solution to all of our problems and the Conservatives want Government to stay the hell out of our lives...

    Ya simply gotta love the irony... :D

    Michale.....

  98. [98] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Chris1962,

    You still haven't come up with a single factual counter-argument. You just keep repeating the same mindless talking-points.

    Michale,

    Why is "tort reform" needed? The conservative argument for tort reform is that it hurts business. Apparently, if you're a business, and convicted of wrongdoing the penalty imposed shouldn't hurt you. Now if you're a human person, as opposed to a corporate person then conservatives think the penalties for wrongdoing should hurt you a lot! Its also just soooo unfair to be judged by a jury of your peons instead of the 1%ers who are your only peers.

    "Tort reform" means the legislature prejudging, on behalf of business, in an attempt to protect business from adverse rulings of the judiciary and the people acting as jurors. Because "conservatives" believe in expanding government to provide additional services to the wealthy, to ensure a lack of personal responsibility for the wealthy and to violate the constitution so that private citizens don't have equal protection under the law.

    That's what's wrong with "tort reform".

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    Why is "tort reform" needed?

    Ask any Doctor, what is the biggest NON-MEDICAL expense he has in treating patients..

    MALPRACTICE INSURANCE....

    Ask any Doctor, why tons more tests are ordered than are actually needed...

    TO AVOID BEING SUED....

    Now, ask yourself...

    Why is TORT REFORM needed??

    Further... Ask yourself...

    Why are Democrats so against Tort Reform??

    Because of all the money that trial lawyers donate to Democrats...

    So, please... Don't insult my intelligence by trying to claim there is a logical and altruistic motive behind the Democrats bailing on Tort Reform...

    They bail on Tort Reform because of the trial lawyer lobbyists...

    PERIOD....

    Michale.....

  100. [100] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Conservatives want Government to stay the hell out of our lives...

    Really?! What conservatives would those be? The conservatives in U.S.A. want government to tell people who they can marry, when they have to have kids, what medical procedures doctors have to perform on them, and what papers they have to have to go out in public.

  101. [101] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Where's your "illegal means illegal" all of a sudden? Malpractice awards are the result of malpractice ie. illegal behavior. Doctors refuse to police themselves so they pay high insurance rates as a consequence. You think they should be free to maim and kill without penalty? You think they should be able to indemnify themselves against the repercussions of maiming and killing without it being costly to them? That patients should assume all the responsibility for doctors' actions.

    If you're so concerned about costs then instead of "reforming" torts let's reform doctors' exemption from anti-trust which allows them to conspire to extort patients into paying for their get-out-of-jail-free-cards instead of just paying for the services they receive.

  102. [102] 
    LewDan wrote:

    And Michale,

    I don't care if Democrats do something because they're in league with the devil. Republicans either.

    I only care about what they do and whether its good policy. Whether its the right thing for the right reasons, the right thing for the wrong reasons, the wrong thing for the right reasons or the wrong thing for the wrong reasons what matters is whether its right or wrong, what's being done, not by whom or why. That's only relevant if you make your decisions based upon partisan prejudices instead of sound objective policy.

  103. [103] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    LewDan: You still haven't come up with a single factual counter-argument. You just keep repeating the same mindless talking-points.

    That's because we're having two separate conversations: You're speaking from the perspective of how the insurance industry exists today, and I'm speaking from the perspective of what the industry would be if it were reformed, i.e., with less federal regulations, tort reform, sales across state borders, etc. THAT'S when competition can happen; not while the industry is shackled by an overload of federal regulations, and astronomical malpractice insurance costs, and an inability to compete across state lines, etc.

  104. [104] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If you want prices to come down, you have to take those shackles off and the let the industry freely compete.

    Sure, Chris. Like the financial industry, right?

    Deregulate and the "magic" will take over? In a deregulated system, all that's been proven is that the extremely wealthy will figure out a way to rig the game.

    Which was ... ahem ... our health care system before ACA. Dropped coverage, lists of pre-conditions, 30+ million uninsured, the most expensive coverage on the planet.

    -David

  105. [105] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I'm not talking about the financial industry, David. And I'm not talking about total deregulation, either. I'm saying that too much regulation — as has happened in this industry — brings companies to a point where they can't even compete anymore, because the federal government is essentially dictating their every move. If you want prices to come down, the companies have to be able to compete for sales. Company-A has to be able to low-ball Company-B. And some ingenious entrepreneur has to be able to come in and out-fox both of them.

  106. [106] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    8,733,461: Workers on Federal 'Disability' Exceed Population of New York City
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/8733461-workers-federal-disability-exceed-population-new-york-city

    I get the feeling that it's time to weed the slackers and scammers out. Again.

  107. [107] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If you want prices to come down, the companies have to be able to compete for sales. Company-A has to be able to low-ball Company-B. And some ingenious entrepreneur has to be able to come in and out-fox both of them.

    You seem to think insurance is a product like a hammer or a watch. Insurance is quite different. With insurance, companies make the most money when premiums are highest and companies pay out the least.

    In other words, companies that treat their customers the worst tend to be more successful and may drive out (or simply purchase) good insurers.

    In other words, there is a strong incentive to do things like deny coverage or not insure people with pre-existing conditions.

    This was the problem with the marketplace solution before. 30+ million uninsured. Payment denials. Lists of pre-conditions where you couldn't get insurance. It's also the same problem with the financial services industry.

    Incentives exist to reward companies that cheat their customers. How do you change this? You have to regulate the industry. It does not regulate itself.

    The good news is that all companies have to face the same regulation. This means no one company has a competitive edge. This means they can still compete equally, which is what you want, right?

    -David

  108. [108] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    David: You seem to think insurance is a product like a hammer or a watch. Insurance is quite different. With insurance, companies make the most money when premiums are highest and companies pay out the least.

    Again, you're talking about how companies operate now. I'm talking about revamping the system. What you describe is not the only way to bring in profits. Offering a wide variety of products, tailor-made for specific groups at all different price ranges can attract all sorts of target consumers. And all it takes is one company to do it successfully, and all the other companies become forced to compete for market share.

    But like I've said, that can only happen if the system is reformed (i.e., removing the overload of regulations, enacting tort reform, opening sales across borders) so that the industry can actually compete.

  109. [109] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    LewDan: What people want is a single-payer system because that is the cheapest and least risky.

    "...just 32 percent supported the Affordable Care Act when it was approved in March 2010, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. As of a month ago, 34 percent supported it, virtually unchanged. To be sure, about a fifth of those who oppose it say it did not go far enough, essentially frustrated liberals."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/us/politics/health-care-overhaul-is-still-no-hit-with-public.html?_r=2&hp

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    Malpractice awards are the result of malpractice ie. illegal behavior.

    There's an old saying amongst submarine sonar men...

    "Anyone can find an anomaly on a playback"

    It's easy, in hindsight, to say that a doctor should have done this or should have done that...

    Amd, for the record. 99.99% of Malpractice Awards are not for illegal behavior or ulterior motives or any other reason..

    99.99% of Malpractice Awards are for honest mistakes...

    I don't care if Democrats do something because they're in league with the devil. Republicans either.

    I only care about what they do and whether its good policy.

    And, apparently, ObamaCare/Tax is NOT good policy...

    Again, don't take my word for it..

    Look at what Progressives are saying about it..

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Victory-for-Obamacare-A-by-shamus-cooke-120702-694.html

    David,

    You seem to think insurance is a product like a hammer or a watch. Insurance is quite different. With insurance, companies make the most money when premiums are highest and companies pay out the least.

    You seem to be buying into LD's argument that Health Insurance is not a commodity..

    For millions of people, it IS.. They buy their Insurance like they buy their hammers or their watch. They look for the item that best fits their needs and their wants...

    If you did tort reform and allowed Insurance companies to compete across state lines, then you WOULD have HealthCare reform.. Or, at the very least, a damn good start...

    Until the Left tries ALL options, rather than ignoring the options that aren't beneficial to the Democratic Party, they will NEVER convince me that they are serious about HealthCare reform..

    Democrats are NOT interested in the health of the American people.

    Democrats are only interested in the health of the Democratic Party.

    Michale.....

  111. [111] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You seem to be buying into LD's argument that Health Insurance is not a commodity.

    It's a different type of commodity. It's not like hammers or stereos. I can tell you this because I've worked for an insurance company.

    The incentives are different. Do you know what makes a good insurance product for the insurance company?

    It's when they can charge you money and never have to pay anyone.

    But like I've said, that can only happen if the system is reformed (i.e., removing the overload of regulations, enacting tort reform, opening sales across borders) so that the industry can actually compete.

    These are the 'reforms' the insurance companies want. There is no reason insurance companies can't compete right now. In fact, they are.

    This idea that somehow insurance companies stop competing, waiting for the day when Republicans will free them from all regulations, is ridiculous.

    Regulations have nothing to do with competition.

    Sure, the insurance industry wants to get rid of them. But they have nothing to do with competition. Why? Because everyone faces the same regulations equally.

    What I don't understand is why you and Michale are so willing to fight for insurance companies, but not the people who are being insured?

    -David

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    What I don't understand is why you and Michale are so willing to fight for insurance companies, but not the people who are being insured

    That's ironic..

    What I don't understand is why you and LD are so willing to fight for government and their curtailing of the people's liberties but not for the people and their liberties?? :D

    "I thought only pansies wore ties."
    "Heh, that's funny. I thought only assholes used the word 'pansies'."

    -Footloose

    :D

    Michale.....

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    How would you feel, David, if President Romney's Administration forced you to buy a firearm and learned how to shoot it?

    Because EVERY reason you give for forcing people to buy health insurance can ALSO be applied to forcing people to buy a firearm and learn to use it.

    Or can be applied to forcing people to eat a certain way...

    Or can be applied to forcing people to talk and act a certain way...

    You simply cannot comprehend the magnitude of the slippery slope that the Left is forcing this country down...

    The scary thing is, the Left is doing it willingly.. Even ENTHUSIASTICALLY!!

    Michale.....

  114. [114] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Because EVERY reason you give for forcing people to buy health insurance can ALSO be applied to forcing people to buy a firearm and learn to use it.

    Ummm ... no.

    The scary thing is, the Left is doing it willingly.. Even ENTHUSIASTICALLY!

    Scary ... the left is trying to take away your "freedoms" ... they are communists ... they are bad, evil people ... it's a big conspiracy ... do what we want you to do ...

    Please ...

    -David

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Ummm ... no.

    Ummmmm Yes.. REALLY.. :D

    Go ahead. Give it a try... :D

    Scary ... the left is trying to take away your "freedoms" ... they are communists ... they are bad, evil people ... it's a big conspiracy ... do what we want you to do ...

    Hyperbole doesn't change the facts..

    Pre-Obama, Americans had the freedom to NOT take care of themselves, to NOT purchase health insurance if they didn't want to..

    We don't have that freedom anymore, now do we??

    Hyperbolize all you want..

    But the simple fact is, Obama and the Democrats DID take away our freedoms..

    Freedoms that were a LOT more relevant and affects a LOT more Americans than ANY freedoms that Bush allegedly took away....

    Let me see.. Am I more affected by not being able to take hair gel on a plane???

    Or am I more affected by being forced to spend thousands of dollars a year for health insurance I may never even need???

    Hmmmmmmmmmm That's a toughie....

    Well, I don't much need hair gel, seeing as I have very little hair..

    And in THIS economy, a few thousand dollars a year will come in REAL handy....

    "I could use a good ass kicking, I'll be very honest with you.."
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

    Michale.....

  116. [116] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Holy shit, you're right ...

    The government is also forcing us to pay for our police ...

    OMG ... and our fire protection ...

    And, and ... our military ... we're being forced to PAY for that too!!!!!

    And, public roads ... and parks ... and education ... and all this great stuff we have in our country ... we're being FORCED to pay and we can't have it for FREE

    :)

    Breathe deep, Michale. It really isn't the end of the world. No one's going to force you to eat broccoli.

    -David

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    It really isn't the end of the world. No one's going to force you to eat broccoli.

    The mere fact that the government COULD if they wanted to is disconcerting enough...

    If a GOP Administration had tried the things that Obama and the Democrats have done, ya'all would be screaming bloody murder...

    The only difference is that we would all be on the same side.. :D

    The government is also forcing us to pay for our police ...

    OMG ... and our fire protection ...

    And, and ... our military ... we're being forced to PAY for that too!!!!!

    The only thing you mention that has relevance is the military.

    We don't pay the Obama government for the other two..

    As far as the military goes, there is that pesky and annoying part of the US CONSTITUTION that says "provide for the common defense"... Ain't that a bitch, eh??

    Now, if you can find ANYTHING in the US Constitution that even HINTS that;

    A} Health Care is a guaranteed right

    and/or

    B} the Government can force an American citizen to purchase a private/public market product to serve "the greater good", simply by virtue of the fact that they exist....

    Then...

    And ONLY then...

    .... will you have a viable argument...

    Michale.....

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that, apparently, the SCOTUS agrees with my argument.

    Which is why they regurgitated the ObamaCare Mandate into an ObamaCare Tax...

    Michale.....

  119. [119] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Now, if you can find ANYTHING in the US Constitution that even HINTS that

    I don't have to.

    And ONLY then ... will you have a viable argument..

    Apparently not according to the Supreme Court.

    But I like your idea of setting up the court of Michale. Where only you get to determine what is and is not a viable argument.

    This is going nowhere though and there is little of the horse left to beat. Happy 4th Michale and I'll let you get in the last word.

    Hope there's some fireworks in your future!

    -David

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    And another great one leaves us...

    Andy Griffith dies at age 86
    http://staugustine.com/news/2012-07-03/andy-griffith-dies-age-86?

    Dunno about anyone else, but I really get bummed out when I hear of another well-known contemporary dying..

    Probably because I am a couple months shy of half a century... :^/

    Michale.....

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently not according to the Supreme Court.

    Actually, EXACTLY per the Supreme Court..

    You are arguing for the Mandate. The court ruled against the Mandate.

    Hence, the "TAX" was born...

    This is going nowhere though and there is little of the horse left to beat. Happy 4th Michale and I'll let you get in the last word.

    Hawkeye: "To show you how sincere I am, I'll let you get in the last word."
    BJ: "Thank you."
    Hawkeye: "You're welcome."

    -M*A*S*H

    Hay, if I get the last word, the least I can do is make it funny.. :D

    Michale...

  122. [122] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Hay, if I get the last word, the least I can do is make it funny.. :D

    Hahahahahah ... whups, sorry ... but that was funny!

  123. [123] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    As far as the military goes, there is that pesky and annoying part of the US CONSTITUTION that says "provide for the common defense"... Ain't that a bitch, eh??

    as i read it, trying to improve the country's medical care (and assessing a tax penalty for those who won't help) falls under "promote the general welfare." whether or not obamacare actually does this is a valid topic for debate, but apparently roberts at least thinks it "could be construed" as such.

    Hay, if I get the last word, the least I can do is make it funny.. :D

    well then, consider this your mulligan ;)

    just in case, here's something else from mash:

    I'm reminded of a story. You've probably heard it. The, uh, King and Queen of this country were playing golf with five clubs, when their son, Jack, remarked how strange it was they had only two hearts between them. Just then, Deucey and her little dog, Tres, started singing "Four Diamonds are a girl's best friend." Whereupon the entire family beat her to death and buried her with two spades. Did you get it?"

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    as i read it, trying to improve the country's medical care (and assessing a tax penalty for those who won't help) falls under "promote the general welfare." whether or not obamacare actually does this is a valid topic for debate, but apparently roberts at least thinks it "could be construed" as such.

    Actually, no he doesn't...

    "People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures - joined with the similar failures of others - can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
    -Chief Justice Roberts

    The Mandate is dead.. Any discussion that the Mandate is justified under the Constitution is dead..

    There are several theories as to why Chief Roberts did what he did.

    1. He truly believes that the Mandate (as a tax) was vital to the survival of this country.

    2. He wanted to protect the integrity of the court.

    3. He wanted to stick it to the Obama campaign in the form of a Pyrrhic victory..

    NONE of those possibilities are palatable to me.. But the first one is so out of character as to be all but impossible...

    Personally, I think it's a combination of 2 and 3...

    Which would indicate that Roberts is nothing more than an opportunistic weasel and a grand master of 3D chess that Obama could only DREAM about being...

    As I said, none of the options are really palatable to me...

    I'm reminded of a story. You've probably heard it. The, uh, King and Queen of this country were playing golf with five clubs, when their son, Jack, remarked how strange it was they had only two hearts between them. Just then, Deucey and her little dog, Tres, started singing "Four Diamonds are a girl's best friend." Whereupon the entire family beat her to death and buried her with two spades. Did you get it?"

    I don't recall the episode, but it was funny.. :D

    Michale....

  125. [125] 
    dsws wrote:

    I'm reminded of a story. You've probably heard it. The, uh, King and Queen of this country were playing golf with five clubs, when their son, Jack, remarked how strange it was they had only two hearts between them. ...

    No, I don't get it. We've got KQJ32 (suit not specified), 5C, 2H, 4D, and 2S: too few cards for bridge, too many for poker. What is it?

  126. [126] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    No, I don't get it. We've got KQJ32 (suit not specified), 5C, 2H, 4D, and 2S: too few cards for bridge, too many for poker. What is it?

    5+2+4+2= 13 = 1/4 deck... Sounds like a bridge hand to me...

  127. [127] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    David: The government is also forcing us to pay for our police ...
    OMG ... and our fire protection ...

    Those are all things that We, the People, want, D. Problem with the "mandate" is that the majority of Americans never wanted it. That's why there's always been so much resistance to having it forced upon us. Liberals tend to forget that We, the People, are the bosses of our public servants, not the other way around. That's why so many Dems got chucked out on their heads. It's not a good thing for the servants to ignore the boss.

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not a good thing for the servants to ignore the boss.

    And THAT says it all.....

    Michale.....

  129. [129] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [117],

    As far as the military goes, there is that pesky and annoying part of the US CONSTITUTION that says "provide for the common defense"...

    You'd be the first I've met who is such an originalist that you don't think the constitution gives the government the right to defend us against nuclear weapons or biological attacks because they only had black powder in 1776. Is that what you are saying? Because if you are not healthcare is "providing for the common defense."

    Defense against plague, genetic disorders, viral and bacteriological attacks. Defense against death and disability do to sickness and injury. Healthcare is "exactly" like the police, firefighters, and military.

    And the only reason we're dinking around trying to keep insurers rich instead of hiring doctors the same way we hire cops and troops is because of conservatives trying to make the 1% richer by forcing us to pay unnecessary middlemen so they can skim money off for themselves.

    And as for your newfound fear of the power of government. America was a slave nation for two-thirds of its existence. This may be news to you White folk but the government has always had the ability to take away anyone's "rights" even all their "rights", and they've never been shy about doing so. Ask Black people, the indigenous native peoples or Japanese Americans.

    What really terrifies is that the White Majoriry is becoming a minority and they're scared spitless that people of color, if they gain sufficient control, will treat White folk the way White folk have always treated people of color.

    Welcome to our world.

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another N.C. Dem. Refuses to Endorse Obama
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/another-nc-dem-refuses-endorse-obama_648076.html

    Think a trend is developing???

    It's beginning to look like NC is lost to Obama...

    Rather ironic, since THAT is where the Democratic Party Convention is being held...

    Michale.....

  131. [131] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Chair1962,

    What are you talking about?! The majority of people in this country have been screaming for affordable healthcare for the last twenty-five years!

    The only debate has been on how to obtain it.

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    What the frak is Obama thinking!???

    Apologizing to Pakistan RIGHT before the 4th of July!!?????

    What IS it with this guy???

    Michale.....

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    What are you talking about?! The majority of people in this country have been screaming for affordable healthcare for the last twenty-five years!

    The only debate has been on how to obtain it.

    Agreed...

    AND they have been screaming just as loudly that ObamaCare/Tax just AIN'T it....

    Democrats promised us a Ferrari and the delivered an Edsel...

    Michale.....

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    Welcome to our world.

    So, you're OK with racism and loss of freedom in atonement for racism and loss of freedom of the past???

    Well..... Ooookkkaaaayyyyy...

    But remember...

    You reap what you sow....

    Michale.....

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yet Another N.C. Dem. Won't Endorse Obama, Will Skip Convention
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/yet-another-nc-dem-wont-endorse-obama-will-skip-convention_648100.html

    Yes... Definitely a trend developing...

    Ya'all just HAVE to feel it..

    The walls closing in, the rats deserting the sinking ship....

    Will a Romney administration be any better???

    Who knows..

    But it's a damn sure fact that it simply CAN'T be worse....

    Michale.....

  136. [136] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [124],

    "The court rules how the court rules... " huh? That didn't last long. Did it.

    The court ruled the mandate was constitutional. That means that it is justified under the constitution.—But not according to you.

    Like any typical conservative you ignore any facts that contradict your prejudice and lie in an attempt to deceive people into believing your nonsensical beliefs. You keep claiming SCOTUS as the authority behind your misrepresentations when it works for you and you ignore SCOTUS when it repudiates your position.

  137. [137] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [134],

    I never said that. I said I've no sympathy at all for your fear.

    I've said it may times before, the framers knew government could not be trusted. And they caved on their principles before even the draft constitution was produced in order to enable slavery and protect plantation owners, proving their own point. But I also appreciate that unlike the Tea Party they recognized the need to compromise. To not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That something was better than nothing.

    And, unlike conservatives, I live in the real world. I know that the only "rights" anybody has are those they are able to defend. And that the Constitution only gives people a framework so they've a fighting chance to defend them. And that, thanks to conservatives, lately we've been losing that fight.

  138. [138] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Will a Romney administration be any better???

    Who knows..

    But it's a damn sure fact that it simply CAN'T be worse....

    ...until and unless it is. obama has been mediocre, so there's plenty of room both above and below.

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    The court ruled the mandate was constitutional.

    And, already the rewrite of history begins...

    The SCOTUS definitely did NOT rule that the mandate was Constitutional.

    The SCOTUS specifically said that the mandate was UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

    "People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures - joined with the similar failures of others - can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
    -Chief Justice Roberts

    Which is why the SCOTUS ruled that the MANDATE is actually a "TAX" and that the TAX is Constitutional..

    Michale.....

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    ...until and unless it is. obama has been mediocre, so there's plenty of room both above and below.

    Unless Romney ignites a nuclear world war that devastates the planet...

    That's about the ONLY thing that is "below" Obama...

    Michale.....

  141. [141] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."

    tunnel-vision on one paragraph of a sixty page opinion, which DOES authorize congress to use its taxing power to the same end.

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    which DOES authorize congress to use its taxing power to the same end.

    EXACTLY...

    It's a TAX.....

    The ObamaCare mandate is ONLY Constitutional as a TAX....

    Michale.....

  143. [143] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Unless Romney ignites a nuclear world war that devastates the planet... That's about the ONLY thing that is "below" Obama...

    come on now, that's just silly. i realize that obama promised a whole lot more than he delivered, that's a fact. there's a lot of hyperbole in the moment, but really, forgetting for a second the sort of expectations he engendered, obama is basically just an average politician doing a so-so job. i think what we tend to resent about him is less about his actual job performance and more about our own anger at ourselves for being taken in by the hype surrounding him in 2008.

    ~joshua

  144. [144] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The ObamaCare mandate is ONLY Constitutional as a TAX....

    it could be constitutional as chicken pot pie, but that wouldn't change the fact that it was upheld. "repeal" is a non-starter, so a much better debate would be what steps can be taken to make obamacare better.

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    i think what we tend to resent about him is less about his actual job performance and more about our own anger at ourselves for being taken in by the hype surrounding him in 2008.

    OK, I can accept that.. Especially since it's what I have been saying for about 3 years now.. :D

    but that wouldn't change the fact that it was upheld.

    I simply will NOT allow anyone to rewrite recent history..

    The Mandate was NOT upheld...

    SCOTUS did some fancy footwork and said the Mandate is no more and a TAX is born..

    And, the TAX is what was upheld...

    Michale.....

  146. [146] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    LewDan: What are you talking about?! The majority of people in this country have been screaming for affordable healthcare for the last twenty-five years!

    Repeat: "The problem with the "mandate" is that the majority of Americans never wanted it."

  147. [147] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [139],

    Okay...You've only just now discovered that "rights" aren't divinely manifest but you're still unclear as to what reality is...

    So, if SCOTUS had found that the mandate was unconstitutional it would have thrown out the mandate. That was, after all, the entire point of the hearings in the first place.

    It Did Not.

    It ruled that the mandate is constitutional because its penalty could be considered a tax that falls under Federal taxing authority. The mandate itself?! Federal government ordering people to buy something? Its been happening since George Washington. It could fall under all sorts of Federal Authorities.

    But since you don't seem to understand what SCOTUS does, or is for—SCOTUS rules on whether legislation is a legal exercise of Constitutional power. The definitions it uses are legal definitions. They are not the same as ordinary English. They are much more specific and much less inclusive. In some cases legal definitions are completely different from common usage.

    SCOTUS did not, and never does, rule on whether Presidential or Congressional statements meets English language common usage definitions.

    I know that this probably won't stop you from continuing to deliberately spin the decision. Just wanted to be sure you aren't as ignorant of Court proceedings as you were on individual rights not being natural laws.

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, if SCOTUS had found that the mandate was unconstitutional it would have thrown out the mandate. That was, after all, the entire point of the hearings in the first place.

    It Did Not.

    Yes.. It did...

    In a manner of speaking...

    It threw out the Mandate. It said it was Unconstitutional...

    Then it brought it BACK in as a TAX.. And said that, as a TAX, it is constitutional...

    Congress can't MANDATE under the Commerce Claus that Americans buy a product....

    THAT is what the SCOTUS ruled...

    Congress, CAN, however, TAX Americans..

    Your mandate is now a TAX...

    I said it before and I'll say it again..

    The Court Rules How The Court Rules..

    And the court ruled that the Mandate is a TAX....

    Michale....

  149. [149] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    That's the most twisted excuse for spin I've seen yet! Congratulations!

    Its just that—if SCOTUS did what you said they did; rejected the ACA then reintroduced the legislation all on their own and passed it themselves—Now that would definitely be unconstitutional!

  150. [150] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The Court Rules How The Court Rules..

    And the court ruled that the Mandate is a TAX....

    the court didn't change anything about it but its legal justification. if the court rules tomorrow that it's neither a mandate nor a tax but is actually a chicken pot pie, would that change anything at all about what it actually does? it would still be a chicken pot pie from the federal government that tells people to be insured or else pay a small penalty.

    Methinks so Brain, verily, but dost thou think pete rose by any other name would still smell as sweaty?
    ~pinky

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    Its just that—if SCOTUS did what you said they did; rejected the ACA then reintroduced the legislation all on their own and passed it themselves—Now that would definitely be unconstitutional!

    I would completely and unequivocally agree...

    Yet, that is EXACTLY what the SCOTUS did. They ruled the Mandate unconstitutional but converted it from a Mandate to a Tax and then ruled that THAT *WAS* Constitutional...

    But you raise a good point.

    If the SCOTUS does it, does that mean it's automatically Constitutional?? :D

    the court didn't change anything about it but its legal justification. if the court rules tomorrow that it's neither a mandate nor a tax but is actually a chicken pot pie, would that change anything at all about what it actually does? it would still be a chicken pot pie from the federal government that tells people to be insured or else pay a small penalty.

    Yes :D

    But until the SCOTUS calls it a Chicken Pot Pie (I am partial to beef, myself) it *IS* a tax...

    And the Obama administration will have to accept that. With all the baggage that goes along with it...

    Michale.....

  152. [152] 
    dsws wrote:

    5+2+4+2= 13

    Ok, I was taking it to be the five of clubs and so on. Now, I still don't get the significance of that particular distribution. KQJ isn't enough high cards to do much bidding, but maybe you could support with it if your partner opens. It's been a while since I learned about bridge, and I never got any good at it.

  153. [153] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    You've one serious problem comprehending reality. 20 years to life isn't murder just because its the penalty for murder. SCOTUS never ruled the mandate unconstitutional. The government is, and always has been, free to order people to do anything it wants. Its the means the government chooses, if it chooses to, to try to coerce people into obeying that must pass constitutional muster.

    SCOTUS only accepted one legal theory supporting constitutionality instead of another. It didn't change the law in any way. It didn't reject the law and then accept a substitute. And it didn't say that using taxing authority was the only way the penalty could be constitutional.

    It said the penalty was a constitutional exercise of Federal taxing authority. It never said the penalty was a tax, that's an inference being made by Republicans. And it certainly never said the mandate was a tax.

    It never said the mandate itself had anything to do with taxes. It never said the mandate itself wasn't a constitutional exercise of the power to control commerce. It only questioned whether making people pay a tax penalty for noncompliance could be justified as controlling commerce. And I seriously doubt that having to pay a tax penalty is a tax is a surprise to anyone.

    Your insistence on conflating the penalty and the mandate in order to misrepresent the decision is dishonest. Your insistence on claiming SCOTUS said and did things it never said and never did is dishonest. Your illogical contortions trying to "prove" that when SCOTUS said the mandate was constitutional it never said the mandate was constitutional are bizarrely dishonest.

    If you refuse to accept the SCOTUS decision, fine, man up and say so. But trying to claim you accept SCOTUS decisions, while insisting they ruled the way you wanted when they didn't, isn't just dishonest its psychotic.

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    SCOTUS only accepted one legal theory supporting constitutionality instead of another.

    There was NO legal conclusion OR theory that said the mandate was Constitutional. Roberts himself STATED that..

    What Roberts said, in essence, was the the Mandate was not consitutional..

    Remember...???

    "That's not the kind of country the fathers invisioned"..

    Those were Robert's own words and he was talking about the Mandate..

    What Roberts did was take an obscure and not fought for argument from the Government (that the mandate was a tax) and ruled that, AS A TAX, it was Constitutional...

    You see the difference??

    Roberts said that if the mandate WAS a mandate, then it would be unconstitutional..

    Roberts THEN said that, if the mandate was a TAX, then it would be constitutional..

    Ergo, presto chango...

    The Mandate became a Tax...

    THAT is the whole of the SCOTUS's ruling.. Dumbed down for knuckle-draggers like me...

    If you refuse to accept the SCOTUS decision, fine, man up and say so.

    That's what's funny..

    I seem to be the ONLY one (CB, too.) who IS accepting the SCOTUS decision as it was rendered...

    It's ya'all who keep trying to make it something that the SCOTUS specifically said it wasn't...

    The SCOTUS ruled that the Mandate is a Tax..

    And, as a TAX, it's Constitutional...

    THAT is the ruling...

    You guys won... I am hard pressed to understand why you refuse to call a spade a spade..

    Well, not really. I understand perfectly why you refuse to accept the SCOTUS ruling..

    Because it makes Obama out to be a liar..

    Maybe that was Robert's intent, I don't know..

    I would like to think that our Chief Justice wouldn't debase himself and lower himself to such political machinations...

    But, WHATEVER the reason, the mandate survived *"AS A TAX"*..

    Now, if you want to spin it as "The Mandate Survived", feel free..

    But do you think ANYONE outside of Obama supporters will look at it that way???

    I have a feeling that most of the rest of America will see the "AS A TAX" part...

    We'll know for sure on 6 Nov 2012... :D

    Michale.....

  155. [155] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    "What Roberts said, in essence..."?

    What the majority opinion said in fact was that the mandate was constitutional. You and Republicans keep spinning the mandate as both unconstitutional and a tax, neither of which is true, to justify your claim Obama lied.

    Claiming that the mandate is constitutional, but not really constitutional is a lie, and an absurd one.

    Claiming that the penalty for violating the mandate is the mandate is a lie, and just as stupid.

    Claiming that something 90% of people won't have to pay is a tax on them is a lie, and typical right-wing propaganda.

    Have health insurance or qualify as an exception and there is no tax. Since most of the country that doesn't have health insurance has been saying they want it but can't afford it. And the "tax" only applies to those who can afford it but don't have it, in an attempt to make it affordable. The penalty won't affect most of the country, just as President Obama said. 10% or less pay a tax. 100% are covered by the mandate.

    I knew you really don't like Obama. And I knew you really expected the ACA to be trashed. But I never would have believed how deep into denial you'd go. You used to at least try to make logical arguments.

    But that's the problem with conservatives. They simply will not accept anything that challenges their fantasies.

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    "People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures - joined with the similar failures of others - can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
    -Chief Justice Roberts

    That SHOULD end *ANY* argument as to what the SCOTUS ruled...

    But I know it won't because, in the eyes of the subjects, the Emperor simply CANNOT be naked...

    But I am hear to tell you, from a REALITY and a FACTUAL point of view...

    Emperor Obama is buck assed nekkid....

    Sorry to be the one to snap you back to reality..

    But the SCOTUS has spoken...

    The Mandate is NOW a TAX...

    And the voters will decide in Nov if they like that or not..

    What say we just table this discussion until 7 Nov?? :D

    Michale....

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    Supreme Court upholds Obamacare individual mandate as a tax
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-issue-obamacare-decision-135554880.html

    THAT's the reality, LD....

    It may be bitter, but it IS the reality...

    Michale.....

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    Individual mandate upheld as tax: Supreme Court updates
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/individual-mandate-upheld-as-tax-supreme-court-udpates/2012/06/28/gJQA3gH58V_blog.html

    I can show you a thousand links..

    All from FACTUAL news reports..

    ALL showing that the SCOTUS ruled the Mandate is a tax...

    Spin all you want.. All you have is Obama saying it's not a tax.. Which is ironic because his OWN administration made the argument that ObamaCare IS a tax...

    You have the ACTUAL SCOTUS ruling on the one hand.

    And you have Obama's spin on the other hand...

    Chose wisely...

    Michale.....

  159. [159] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    As I said, you are in total denial. That is simply Roberts' "logic" for not accepting the Commerce Clause arguments. And of course you'd believe that BS! Using Chief Justice Roberts' "logic" the framers did not intend government to compel people to obey the law?! Just where in the Constitution does it say that government can't "compel citizens to act as the government would have them act"? Or where does it says they can't do it when its about interstate commerce?!

    The Chief Justice is not SCOTUS.
    I've said all along that the five Republican Justices are partisan hacks who should be impeached. Your quote is just one more example. If SCOTUS weren't ruled by partisan ideologues the ACA would have been found Constitutional as an exercise of Commerce powers.

    However nothing changes the fact that SCOTUS did not determine it was a tax. SCOTUS does not determine what's a tax. Its not their job and it isn't what their decision was about or what their decision said. Even if Roberts' nonsense were true (and its not) its the opinion of the lone Republican of the five who upheld the ACA not the opinion of SCOTUS.

  160. [160] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    I don't care how many links you can find, and I don't doubt your news links are factual. I just don't accept your factual news as news about facts.

    Unlike Republicans I have a brain and I'm not afraid to use it.

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    Just where in the Constitution does it say that government can't "compel citizens to act as the government would have them act"? Or where does it says they can't do it when its about interstate commerce?!

    If the US Constitution doesn't specifically give the government power to do something, then the government CAN'T do it..

    So, the proper question is NOT "where in the US Constitution does it say the Government *CAN'T* do it??"

    The proper question is, "where in the US Constitution does it say the Government *CAN* do it??"

    And the answer to the PROPER questions is: Nowhere...

    Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that the Government can force people to buy a private/public market product.

    Ergo, the Government CAN'T...

    Of course, Roberts threw out the Mandate under the Commerce Claus argument. Because it was Unconstitutional...

    But under the *GOVERNMENT'S* Tax Argument, the mandate IS Constitutional. Therefore, the Mandate is now a Tax...

    You seem to forget that the Obama Government MADE the Mandate Is A Tax argument. The SCOTUS Majority simply accepted the government's own argument..

    The court rules how the court rules.

    And the court ruled that the Mandate, AS A TAX, is Constitutional...

    Like I said.. You won. Enjoy it... :D

    Michale.....

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    You say no taxes are part of ObamaCare??

    There are actually 20 new and/or higher Taxes associated with ObamaCare.

    Many of them hit the middle class and seniors...

    These taxes will take effect NEXT YEAR, unless ObamaCare is repealed...

    Medical Device Manufacturing Tax
    Guess who is actually going to pay this tax?? The people who need life-saving devices...

    High Medical Bills Tax
    This tax will gouge middle class Americans to the tune of 15 BILLION dollars over the next 10 years..

    Flexible Spending Account Cap
    ObamaCare caps spending under this account at $2500.00 per year. Right now, there is no cap... So, if little Johnny needs braces (which can cost upwards of 6K-8K, Mommy & Daddy have to pony up the money or Johnny grows up with frak'ed up teeth. Have a autistic or special needs child?? Care for them runs upwards of 15 THOUSAND a year... Sorry.. Your ability to use the FSA has just been shut down.... Thank you, President Obama...

    Surtax on Investment Income
    128 BILLION out of middle class American's pockets over the next ten years.. 'Warrior For The Middle Class' my arse!!!

    Medicare Payroll Tax increase
    Remember small business owners?? They are the people that DRIVE an economy.. That create the jobs this country so desperately needs.. They are getting soaked for 86 BILLION in new taxes, thanks to ObamaCare.. I guess we don't have to wonder anymore why business owners are holding on to their money...

    Those taxes and costs are just the tip of the iceberg.. Just a small portion of what's going to happen in less than 6 months, if ObamaCare stands...

    And, ironically, none of those.... Let me repeat that for the cheap seats... NONE OF THOSE will help lower healthcare costs in any WAY, SHAPE or FORM..

    In fact, ALL of those do just the opposite....

    So, someone tell me how awesome ObamaCare is??? I seem to have forgotten...

    Michale.....

  163. [163] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [161],

    When you're right you're right! Who am I to contradict SCOTUS?

    Especially since SCOTUS is more Progressive than any Democrat could have imagined in their most fantastic Opium Dreams! Who would have imagined that SCOTUS would decide that drug laws, under which tens of millions of Americans have been incarcerated, are unconstitutional!

    "People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
    -Chief Justice Roberts

    The 8-12 million illegal immigrants will be thrilled that immigration laws are unconstitutional!

    "People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
    -Chief Justice Roberts

    Women will be relieved that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional!

    "People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
    -Chief Justice Roberts

    Travelers can relax now that the TSA is unconstitutional!

    "People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
    -Chief Justice Roberts

    Seniors can buy cheap knockoff drugs from anywhere since import and patent laws are unconstitutional!

    "People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
    -Chief Justice Roberts

    Students and "cloud" data-storage sites can finally copy and trade music and videos free from fear since the DMCA and copyright laws are unconstitutional!

    "People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
    -Chief Justice Roberts

    Though the NRA will be pleased that gun-control laws are unconstitutional!

    "People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
    -Chief Justice Roberts

    Still unsure about DOMA though... Is the constitutional legal authority for that the Commerce clause, the Unequal Protection For Gays clause, the Freedom of Christian Religion, Press, Expression clause, or the Unequal Rights amendment? Though I'm sure we'll know soon enough! SCOTUS will make-up decide something before too long. Just like it did when SCOTUS ruled that:

    "People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
    -Chief Justice Roberts

    ...I mean—That is the law isn't it?! Since the constitution doesn't authorize "Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision." (Chief Justice Roberts) all laws where government tries to do so are unconstitutional! Since no one can claim prison-time is a tax! Not after SCOTUS ruled:

    "People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
    -Chief Justice Roberts

    Its not like this obvious truth, (that somehow eluded everyone for 230 years! Until, our brilliant Chief Justice, bent his formidable intellect to the issue,) only applies just to laws passed by Black men in the Whitehouse! Right? That wouldn't be right-wing!—We simply have to accept that SCOTUS ruled:

    "People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
    -Chief Justice Roberts

    Now, when you think about it, since the framers had four whole pages and nothing to write but the laws for a new country it makes sense that all that stuff about courts, juries and trials were just thrown in for giggles! That's why no other individual "rights" are mentioned in the original Constitution! It must never have occurred to the framers that the constitution would be misused to authorize "Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision." (Chief Justice Roberts)! Fortunately that's why the framers wisely set SCOTUS above us in order to correct our merely mortal transgressions and rule:

    "People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
    -Chief Justice Roberts

    Now I've actually read all four pages of the Constitution! But being only a layman and not having been inducted into the mysteries of the Constitution like High-priest Chief Justice Roberts I never realized those individual "rights" the original Constitution mentions, trial by jury of peers, grand juries, double jeopardy, stuff like that? were just brain-farts! Constitutional doodles, since the framers had so much paper to play with! Now that Chief Justice Roberts has pointed it out for the uninitiated, even I can see that the framers understood that:

    "People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
    -Chief Justice Roberts

    But we can talk more about the Great-and-Powerful-Wizard Chief Justice Roberts some other time. I have to go home now...

    Oh, and Tin-man, if you ever find that brain—let me know.

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting diatribe...

    But it can all be nullified by one simple question.

    Does the Constitution allow the Federal Government to force fat people to buy sensible food, enroll in a gym and weight-loss program, so the won't become a burden to society in the future???

    Using your "logic", the Federal Government abso-tively and posit-loutly has that power...

    But we both know that, the reality is far FAR different...

    only applies just to laws passed by Black men in the Whitehouse!

    What IS it about the Left that they ALWAYS have to bring race into the discussion??? :^/

    The long and the short of it is that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not give the government the authority to force an American Citizen into in order to regulate it...

    This was a UNANIMOUS ruling by the SCOTUS, who has the final say on Constitutionality...

    Let me repeat that so there can be no confusion..

    The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ruled **UNAMIMOUSLY** that the Federal Government cannot force an American Citizen into commerce for the purposes of regulating that commerce...

    The government CAN, however, TAX an American Citizen, if they elect not to enter into the designated commerce.

    But, as has been so assiduously pointed out, it's the American People who will have the final say in the matter..

    And that final say occurs on 6 Nov 2012...

    I, for one, simply CANNOT wait.. :D

    Michale.....

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    The long and the short of it is that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not give the government the authority to force an American Citizen into in order to regulate it..

    Of course, that should say

    The long and the short of it is that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not give the government the authority to force an American Citizen into Commerce in order to regulate it..

    Michale.....

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously.. Think about it..

    Do you want the kind of government that sits in judgment and deems that THIS action or THAT non-action is not in the public good and therefore the government must step in..

    Is THAT really the kind of government ya'all are fighting for??

    Why not just get it over with and declare undying fealty to Governor Kodos of Tarsus IV??

    Because, in the end, that's what it all boils down too...

    Michale....

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Simply because this argument hasn't been sufficiently beat into the ground, allow me to administer the Coop Dee Gracie....

    When you have the bluest of the bluest of the blue websites proclaiming that the mandate was ruled Unconstitutional and was upheld as a tax, then it's a pretty safe bet that THAT is exactly what occurred...

    The SCOTUS Taxing-Power Argument That WSJ's Henninger Missed
    http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2012/06/30/the-scotus-taxing-power-argument-that-wsjs-henn/186657

    Read 'em and weep, ladies and gents...

    This equine is now truly, completely and unequivocally.... dead...

    :D

    Michale.....

  168. [168] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    The Constitution doesn't even try to tell government how to exercise its authority. The idea the the Constitution doesn't permit the government to exercise its power this way is simply something SCOTUS made-up. If thee Constitution gives the Federal government the authority to act and unless the Constitution explicitly denies a particular method of action the government is free to exercise its power any way it sees fit.

    Any powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the States. Not methods. SOCTUS claim that government cannot mandate commerce is historically false and constitutionally without a basis. As is your is your insistence that SCOTUS rejecting a particular legal theory is rejecting the law itself.

    Your citing sources has no more impact on me than my citing facts apparently as on you. People believe what they want to believe.

    What infuriates me is that SCOTUS and all other government officials lie with impunity. The people are too busy choosing sides and trying to score points on one another to even care about the truth.

    What's destroying America isn't just corrupt politicians and bad policies, its people who vote the way they shop; as much, if not more, impressed with marketing than substance. The desire to fit in does not serve a Democratic Republic that requires voters who can think independently.

    We are never going to agree because you base your opinion on what SCOTUS says and I base mine on what the Constitution says.

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's destroying America isn't just corrupt politicians and bad policies, its people who vote the way they shop; as much, if not more, impressed with marketing than substance.

    Which explains exactly how Obama became President...

    We are never going to agree because you base your opinion on what SCOTUS says and I base mine on what the Constitution says.

    Not precisely..

    I base my argument on what the SCOTUS says the Constitution says because that's the way it's been for over 200 years..

    You base your argument on your interpretation of what the Constitution says..

    Which is your right, to be sure.

    But, and I say this with the utmost respect, your interpretation of what the Constitution says doesn't carry as much weight with me as the SCOTUS and their interpretation...

    Doesn't mean I don't like you, doesn't mean I won't buy you a beer if we ever meet..

    Just means I am going to take the SCOTUS over you when it comes to Constitutional Law.. :D

    Michale.....

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]