Individual Mandate Constitutional

[Marginal Economist]

Hmm......health insurance company stocks went down today and hospital stock went up. Wonder why? Could be that health insurance companies will see decrease in premiums like in MA and hosptials will see increase in revenue as more needing service won't be deadbeats hanging around emergency rooms that cost much more.

My initial thoughts are that insurance companies will see a decrease in margins, while hospitals will see an increase in volume and pricing. Long term I expect to see less health insurance providers, higher premiums for everyone, and increased pricing for all services and drugs across the spectrum.

[fmccap]

[Langston Hughes]

I am left wondering what decades he is talking about? Perhaps the 50-60's? While many conservatives might like a return to those days, I do not. Is it possible that Ron and Sharon Angle could get together and restart the chickens for doctor visit system that would truly be the envy of the third world. I like many things about Ron Paul, but the simple reality of his desire to constantly return to days long gone by makes me believe that he's not capable of running an advanced millennial nation. We can not go back 40 to 90 years for his policies at this point.

[Happy Gilmore]

Perhaps you missed the citations to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in those posts. You should read things before you accuse someone of being a "dummie" or "all round failure".

 

Of course, you haven't cited ANY evidence to support your positions.

 

First, I love how the dummie can't respond himself. Why is that Mark? Why do so many of those with the same political beliefs you have are unable to do anything other then re-post a link, or say "I agree with you"? Again, dummies.

 

Furthermore, don't you claim to be a lawyer? Isn't the first thing they teach you in law school is the you must prove guilt, and not prove innocence? It's the same with the whole MMGW BS. Lefties want people to prove it doesn't exist without ever proving it does. Until the dummie proves what he has said is 100% correct, then I don't need to prove he is 100% wrong. The burden is on him.

 

Of course. Goppers don't want to understand that when they send somebody to jail, that person is removed from being a support to their kin and family. Thus poverty is perpetuated and more crime and more people in jail. This justifies lots of things, like the perpetuation of something that doesn't work: the bottom third of American society is falling apart while the Goppers howl for police-state security to make it happen even faster.

 

WTF!?!?!?!?

 

Why does the Left always play the victim card. If somebody commits a crime against society, they should be punished. It's then on them for what might happen to their family. You're implying that we shouldn't imprison people who conduct criminal behavior because it might create poverty within their family. Here's an idea, don't commit the crime so that you don't go to prison, and your family won't starve

[Happy Gilmore]

 

Far too many Americans didn't see the disaster headed their way (sounds like the fine folks of NOLA) when they promised to elect this guy, but I pray they see what is coming if they let this stand.

 

http://www.businessi...decision-2012-6

 

The Supreme Court upheld Obamacare today, and the restaurant business is "troubled" over the decision because they doubt they'll be able to afford the new regulations.

 

The restaurant industry is notoriously low-margin to begin with, and having to pay for employees' healthcare will be a "burden," the National Restaurant Association said today.

[Edstock]

WTF!?!?!?!?

 

Gee, Happy, it's not that difficult to comprehend. I'll walk you through it, I know you can do it.

 

Statement #1: "when they send somebody to jail, that person is removed from being a support to their kin and family"

 

Seems pretty straight forward. If this is the part you don't understand, I can re-phrase it, but you shouldn't have a problem assuming you have a reasonable vocabulary.

 

Statement #2: "Thus poverty is perpetuated and more crime and more people in jail."

 

Seems that prison population statistics and national income statistics show this, since Reagan.

 

Statement #3: "This justifies lots of things, like the perpetuation of something that doesn't work"

 

Seems that several South American countries are about to declare the War on Drugs to be dead; they've figured it out, just like Portugal. Perhaps, if you weren't such a Gopper slappy, maybe you could figure it out too.

 

Statement #4: "the bottom third of American society is falling apart"

 

Can you say "Dumpster-Diving"? Wonderful phrase, post-Reagan American creation to describe society's successful. Dumpster-Diving: Invented in America.

 

Statement #5: "while the Goppers howl for police-state security to make it happen even faster."

 

Just listen to you and your cohort. Feel the hatred and the frustration?

[napfirst]

Gee, Happy, it's not that difficult to comprehend. I'll walk you through it, I know you can do it.

 

Statement #1: "when they send somebody to jail, that person is removed from being a support to their kin and family"

 

Seems pretty straight forward. If this is the part you don't understand, I can re-phrase it, but you shouldn't have a problem assuming you have a reasonable vocabulary.

 

Statement #2: "Thus poverty is perpetuated and more crime and more people in jail."

 

Seems that prison population statistics and national income statistics show this, since Reagan.

 

Statement #3: "This justifies lots of things, like the perpetuation of something that doesn't work"

 

Seems that several South American countries are about to declare the War on Drugs to be dead; they've figured it out, just like Portugal. Perhaps, if you weren't such a Gopper slappy, maybe you could figure it out too.

 

Statement #4: "the bottom third of American society is falling apart"

 

Can you say "Dumpster-Diving"? Wonderful phrase, post-Reagan American creation to describe society's successful. Dumpster-Diving: Invented in America.

 

Statement #5: "while the Goppers howl for police-state security to make it happen even faster."

 

Just listen to you and your cohort. Feel the hatred and the frustration?

More superflous BS......

[fmccap]

I am left wondering what decades he is talking about? Perhaps the 50-60's? While many conservatives might like a return to those days, I do not. Is it possible that Ron and Sharon Angle could get together and restart the chickens for doctor visit system that would truly be the envy of the third world. I like many things about Ron Paul, but the simple reality of his desire to constantly return to days long gone by makes me believe that he's not capable of running an advanced millennial nation. We can not go back 40 to 90 years for his policies at this point.

[Edstock]

More superflous BS......

More superflous BS......

 

You're entitled to your opinion; mine is that I patiently explained a simple series of statements.

 

Your contention that it is "superflous" (sic) is incorrect, because the word "superflous" (sic) implies that the points have already been answered. Which was not the case, as you can see by the sequence of the posts. Try using a dictionary.

 

Now, as to whether these points are BS, again, that's your opinion, but the trends I pointed out do exist, whether you like it or not.

[napfirst]

You're entitled to your opinion; mine is that I patiently explained a simple series of statements.

 

Your contention that it is "superflous" (sic) is incorrect, because the word "superflous" (sic) implies that the points have already been answered. Which was not the case, as you can see by the sequence of the posts. Try using a dictionary.

 

Now, as to whether these points are BS, again, that's your opinion, but the trends I pointed out do exist, whether you like it or not.

even more superflous BS.........

 

 

And from a dictionary:

 

 

o·pin·ion

  <a onmousedown="spk(this,{lk:'nx1fkx',en:'wotdau',io:'0',b:'wotd',tp:'lrl',m:'wotdau'})" href="#"></a><a target="_blank" href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/O01/O0129600"><img border="0" src="http://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif"></a> /əˈpɪnyən/ Show Spelled[uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA

 

noun

1.

a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty

[FordBuyer]

Funny how extreme Left and extreme Right people both love executing people. Makes 'em feel so righteous. It's good to feel righteous, especially after the DNA shows the schmuck didn't do it.

 

The point is, those that you are complaining about are a minority of the prison population, most of whom are put away for relatively minor offences. Shoot 'em all, and you still have a gigantic prisoner-bloat.

 

That's because the War On Drugs is a failure. The drug sales continue. The DEA has jobs, and a vested interest in keeping things as they are, just like Wackenhut and the rest. The number of rent-a-cops now exceeds the number of US municipal police.

 

It's a multi-billion dollar pork barrel that produces nothing but grief and misery, and righteous cries to stuff even more people behind bars.

 

As I asked before, the question is, is it sustainable? For how long? Is there a tipping-point? Is it the Gopper War on Hispanics?

 

I don't know about you, but if I was convicted of murder in the 1st degree, and DNA proved it, I would rather be executed humanely than live behind bars for the rest of my life like a caged animal in a zoo. I don't know that I could spend one day behind bars let alone rest of my life. So I'm surprised some prisoners on Death Row or guilty of 1st Degree murder don't clamor for the death penalty. I know everyone in prisons claims they are innocent, but I'm sure some admit they are screwed up, mean, humans with no redeeming qualities and would do themselves in if given a chance. Don't know if there are statistics on how many in prison are murdered and commit suicide or at least attempt suicide in any given year. Around here, District Court "prisoners" do all kinds of odd jobs in community like cut seniors lawns, highway trash pickup, and the like, but not sure if you can make convicted, dangerous murderer productive in prison. If not productive in prison in some way, I resent paying their board and keep for decades as taxpayer.

[fmccap]

[mikem12]

*for all you arm chair lawyers*

 

 

Subject: True Nature of Justice Roberts Decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important

that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on

Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all

the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous,

ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

 

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause,

was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first

place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to

purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional.

As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must,

to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds

Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial

Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax.

Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty.

Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the

Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax,

either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land —

beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars.

Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal

government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid

funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with

Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a

state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but

if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by

yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care

without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12,

25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national,

is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s

coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to

purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to

have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and

should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his

windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.

w!

 

This article, written by I.M. Citizen, gives a much different perspective of Justice

Robert’s decision.

[Langston Hughes]

FMCCAP

 

Your distrust of Obama's healthcare reform is noted.

[fmccap]

FMCCAP

 

Your distrust of Obama's healthcare reform is noted.

I feel special all of the sudden.

 

Let's also note the governments track record on most of what they do.

[fmccap]

 

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal

government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid

funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with

Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a

state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but

if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by

yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care

without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12,

25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national,

is it?

.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Gov-Scott-Says-Fla-Wont-Comply-with-Health-Care-Law-160943495.html

 

Florida Gov. Rick Scott now says Florida will do nothing to comply with President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and will not expand its Medicaid program.

"Florida is not going to implement Obamacare. We are not going to expand Medicaid and we're not going to implement exchanges,'' Scott's spokesman Lane Wright told The Associated Press on Saturday. Wright stressed that the governor would work to make sure the law is repealed.

[Happy Gilmore]

even more superflous BS.........

 

 

And from a dictionary:

 

 

o·pin·ion

  <a onmousedown="spk(this,{lk:'nx1fkx',en:'wotdau',io:'0',b:'wotd',tp:'lrl',m:'wotdau'})" href="#"></a><a target="_blank" href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/O01/O0129600"><img border="0" src="http://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif"></a> /əˈpɪnyən/ Show IPA

 

noun

1.

a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty

 

He's been proven wrong, don't expect him to post again for a while, or even acknowledge his mistakes.

 

 

 

Gee, Happy, it's not that difficult to comprehend. I'll walk you through it, I know you can do it.

 

Statement #1: "when they send somebody to jail, that person is removed from being a support to their kin and family"

 

Seems pretty straight forward. If this is the part you don't understand, I can re-phrase it, but you shouldn't have a problem assuming you have a reasonable vocabulary.

 

Statement #2: "Thus poverty is perpetuated and more crime and more people in jail."

 

Seems that prison population statistics and national income statistics show this, since Reagan.

 

Statement #3: "This justifies lots of things, like the perpetuation of something that doesn't work"

 

Seems that several South American countries are about to declare the War on Drugs to be dead; they've figured it out, just like Portugal. Perhaps, if you weren't such a Gopper slappy, maybe you could figure it out too.

 

Statement #4: "the bottom third of American society is falling apart"

 

Can you say "Dumpster-Diving"? Wonderful phrase, post-Reagan American creation to describe society's successful. Dumpster-Diving: Invented in America.

 

Statement #5: "while the Goppers howl for police-state security to make it happen even faster."

 

Just listen to you and your cohort. Feel the hatred and the frustration?

 

It's very easy to comprehend. You don't want people to be held accountable for their actions. The laws of the land are very clear. If you choose to break them, and are caught, you will have to face the penalty. If you're family is affected by it, then that is your own responsibility. Can you guys please stop playing the victim and start owning up to your actions?

 

 

If not productive in prison society in some way, I resent paying their board and keep for decades as taxpayer.

 

There, fixed it for you. Oh wait, that's your sides entire voting base.

[fmccap]

FMCCAP

 

Your distrust of Obama's healthcare reform is noted.

LH

Your misunderstanding of what is going on is noted.

[Langston Hughes]

LH

Your misunderstanding of what is going on is noted.

 

 

May i ask how i am supposed to take, "What the fuck could possibly go wrong?" I'm certain that the logical answer would be that you do not trust the presidents plan to work, but I am more than willing to hear what you would find the logical answer to be. Perhaps i should have just found some cynical cut and paste jpeg to do the talking for me. That's always the best way to have a discourse and to explain ones self right?

 

Look fmccap, I think Ron is one of the good guys, a thoughtful person who honestly cares, which is way more than i'll say for most politicians and the current GOP nominee but he really is trapped with outdated ideas that no longer fit the world we live in. His flirtation with the gold and then a multiple commodity based standard is great on a theoretical basis but honestly there is no way to go back now. The idea that people can afford to see the doctor and pay for the whole visit by themselves is nonsense. That is why we have the lousy situation where people us the emergency room as a routines visit. And the US system hasn't been the envy of the modern world for years. Would you envy a system that if you didn't have the right job, you could be bankrupted by your medical bills. That you could work hard and still be swallowed up by the system.

 

What is truly better: a country where everyone gets moderate to good healthcare, or a country that goes from none to great in it's spectrum? I'm on the great side and you are too so people will envy us, but they don't envy the none, at least not in developed nations.

[Langston Hughes]

[grbeck]

Grbeck, I don't think gang violence explains our high rate of incarceration. We jail people for long periods of time for drug crimes and property crimes. One of the reasons I support decriminalization of pot is that we spend 100s of millions keeping pot growers, sellers and users in jail.

 

Many of the people in jail for drug crimes pled to the drug offense to avoid a stiffer sentence for another offense. Eliminate drug offenses, and they would most likely in jail anyway.

 

Plenty of inmates in jail for drug offenses aren't there for buying or selling marijuana. They are involved with the more serious drugs. There isn't much support, beyond the readers of High Times and Reason magazine, for legalizing cocaine, heroin or crystal meth.

 

As for property crimes - they should be in jail. I consider burglary to be a very serious offense.

Edited July 2, 2012 by grbeck

[Mark B. Morrow]

Many of the people in jail for drug crimes pled to the drug offense to avoid a stiffer sentence for another offense. Eliminate drug offenses, and they would most likely in jail anyway.

 

Plenty of inmates in jail for drug offenses aren't there for buying or selling marijuana. They are involved with the more serious drugs. There isn't much support, beyond the readers of High Times and Reason magazine, for legalizing cocaine, heroin or crystal meth.

 

As for property crimes - they should be in jail. I consider burglary to be a very serious offense.

 

I do as well. Legalizing Pot would still result in less property crime as the price would come down and many of the ancillary crimes would not be committed. While I do have great misgivings about legalizing Cocaine, Heroin and Crystal Meth, I do believe that the vast sums of money spent incarcerating addicts would be better spent on treatment. The problem with jailing addicts is that eventually you let them out and then they are unemployable ex-cons who go right back to using and/or committing crimes to support their addiction.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Mark B. Morrow

[fmccap]

May i ask how i am supposed to take, "What the fuck could possibly go wrong?" I'm certain that the logical answer would be that you do not trust the presidents plan to work, but I am more than willing to hear what you would find the logical answer to be. Perhaps i should have just found some cynical cut and paste jpeg to do the talking for me. That's always the best way to have a discourse and to explain ones self right?

 

Look fmccap, I think Ron is one of the good guys, a thoughtful person who honestly cares, which is way more than i'll say for most politicians and the current GOP nominee but he really is trapped with outdated ideas that no longer fit the world we live in. His flirtation with the gold and then a multiple commodity based standard is great on a theoretical basis but honestly there is no way to go back now. The idea that people can afford to see the doctor and pay for the whole visit by themselves is nonsense. That is why we have the lousy situation where people us the emergency room as a routines visit. And the US system hasn't been the envy of the modern world for years. Would you envy a system that if you didn't have the right job, you could be bankrupted by your medical bills. That you could work hard and still be swallowed up by the system.

 

What is truly better: a country where everyone gets moderate to good healthcare, or a country that goes from none to great in it's spectrum? I'm on the great side and you are too so people will envy us, but they don't envy the none, at least not in developed nations.

They are not outdated ideas, just abandoned for no good reason.

 

What is the real reason everything is so expensive? Don't tell me the greedy CEO either.

[fmccap]

FMCCAP

 

Your distrust of Obama's healthcare reform is noted.

How is the great government FDA doing?

http://www.blacklistednews.com/GlaxoSmithKline%3A_Largest_Case_of_Healthcare_Fraud_in_U.S._History_/20347/0/0/0/Y/M.html

GSK targeted the antidepressant Paxil to patients under age 18 when it was approved for adults only, and it pushed the drug Wellbutrin for uses it was not approved for, including weight loss and treatment of sexual dysfunction, according to an investigation led by the U.S. Justice Department.

The company went to extreme lengths to promote the drugs, such as distributing a misleading medical journal article and providing doctors with meals and spa treatments that amounted to illegal kickbacks, prosecutors said.

 

They are the ones that are supposed to know all right? What happened?

 

 

The governments track record is noted and where I get my decision from.

[Langston Hughes]

How is the great government FDA doing?

http://www.blacklist.../0/0/0/Y/M.html

 

 

They are the ones that are supposed to know all right? What happened?

 

 

The governments track record is noted and where I get my decision from.

 

Let me get this straight, your offering up that a pharmaceutical company lied, bribed and was involved in criminal activity and government is wrong to be involved in healthcare reform? Strangely enough, the GSK case was going to be my case for tougher restrictions on corporations and more monitoring of corporations. I'm not sure i see how less government would be a better thing in this case, so please could you explain how more government is worse.

 

As a diabetic, the thought that corporations hide certain medical risks associated with medicine that I take makes me very angry and I have a hard time trusting them. I do realize that the FDA is not the total solution but until human nature changes and CEO's put people ahead of profit we will always need to regulate and watch them.