patrick.net

Kevin .... who should we accept as a definition of Thomas Jefferson; you or JFK? LOL

RAY...I was reading your post of 12:49 above - Interesting because I was also on the "dark side" in the past. At least until I educated myself. I chose personal responsibility over dependency. I chose liberty over tyranny. I chose freedom over force. I chose independence over collectivism.

Liberals live with a seedy mindset of: pity, neediness, misfortune, poverty, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, injustice. The victims are the: workers, minorities, the little guy, women and the unemployed.

Liberals accuse: Big business, the man, big corporations, greedy capitalists, the rich, the successful, the wealthy, the powerful, and the selfish of being the bad guy, the predators, or the oppressors.

The liberal motto is "In Government We Trust". Ah, dependency at its finest. MOMMY !!!

Oh come now JFK was a lefty, we know this because he cheated with hot movie starlets:

Where Republicans prefer some doughboy in a men's room:

Honest Abe says

I chose personal responsibility over dependency. I chose liberty over tyranny. I chose freedom over force. I chose independence over collectivism.
Liberals live with a seedy mindset of: pity, neediness, misfortune, poverty, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, injustice. The victims are the: workers, minorities, the little guy, women and the unemployed.
Liberals accuse: Big business, the man, big corporations, greedy capitalists, the rich, the successful, the wealthy, the powerful, and the selfish of being the bad guy, the predators, or the oppressors.
The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust”. Ah, dependency at its finest. MOMMY !!!

A very good illustration of what a real American is and isn't. Nice job Abe. You sir are a great American!

Vincente .... actually I did shake hands with JFK when I was a little boy. My mother took me to hear a speech given by him and we were shut out due to the large crowd. We stayed outside and when he was finished, for security reasons they kept the crowd inside and his small entourage of secret service, etc. came right out to where just the two of us were standing. He came right up to us and, in hind sight, amazingly spent about a minute with us. That small incident sparked an interest in me regarding politics, current events, history, and (as an adult) in separating the myth of JFK from the real person. I am totally convinced he would in fact be a Reagan Republican if he were alive today.

RayAmerica says

I am totally convinced he would in fact be a Reagan Republican if he were alive today.

But then we have learned that everything you are convinced of is off the charts stupid.

RayAmerica says

actually I did shake hands with JFK when I was a little boy.

Is that a euphemism for masturbation? 'cause a lot of little boys do That.

RayAmerica says

I was an admirer of JFK. Why? JFK represented the Democratic Party when it wasn’t a whacko group made up of nutty, left wing, radical socialists that wanted to hug trees, save whales, marry their buddies and kill babies. If JFK were alive today, he’d be a conservative member of the GOP. In defining terms of these leftoids, JFK would be a “Reagan Conservative Radical.”

Things JFK had in common with Reagan:

- Wanted to lower tax rates (the top marginal rate was 90% when he took office)
- Wanted to start a war with communists
- Didn't mind causing civil wars and military coups in third world countries
- Amazing speaker
- Support for space exploration (at least late in his career)

Things JFK did that Reagan would never support:

- Heavy-handed intervention in the steel industry
- More government spending on public education
- Government-provided health care for the elderly
- Welfare for poor (at the time, rural) communities
- Government intervention during the recession (generally through monetary policy easing)

If you want to know what Kennedy's politics would have looked like today, just look at the politics of his family members. You're crazy if you think Kennedy would be anything close to what we call a "conservative" today. Shit, Richard Nixon would be called a liberal today by your standards.

At least one Federal Judge understands the Constitution. Mandating American citizens to purchase, under penalty of law, private health insurance is clearly unconstitutional. This ruling is a step in the right direction in getting Obamacare overturned.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html

Congrats, ray, you guys' judge-shopping finally found one on the take.

Mandating American citizens to purchase, under penalty of law, private health insurance is clearly unconstitutional.

And yet it was part of the Chaffee plan of 1993, with such anti-Constitutional co-sponsors like Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch.

I suppose you know more about the US Constitution than Bob Dole did in 1993, right?

But I do in fact hope ObamaCare is scrapped. The past 20 years have been a bad dream and we're going to need to reboot this place from first principles, and we're going to have to fight each other in the streets to establish these principles, since obviously democracy itself can no longer function in this country.

2nd Amendment FTW.

I was wondering when you'd get around to posting about this. In response, though I don't personally agree with the 'mandate', I'll reply by quoting a bit from a news story I read a couple of days ago:

So the "big" story is that a district court judge has ruled that health care reform's individual mandate is unconstitutional, dealing reform a Massively Major Blow. That must mean the "little" story is that in fourteen previous cases, judges have either dismissed cases against the law's constitutionality or ruled against those cases. From the White House comes this roster of some of the rejected cases:

Sollars v. Reid -dismissed 4/2/10
Taitz v. Obama - dismissed 4/14/10
Archer v. U.S. Senate - dismissed 4/12/10
Heghmann v. Sebelius - dismissed 5/14/10
Mackenzie v. Shaheen - dismissed 5/26/10
Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots v. Sebelius - dismissed 6/2/10
Coalition for Parity Inc. v. Sebelius - dismissed on 6/21/10
U.S. Citizens Association v. OMB - dismissed 8/2/10
Baldwin v. Sebelius – dismissed 8/27/10
Burlsworth v. Holder - dismissed 9/8/10
Schreeve v. Obama - dismissed 11/4/10

And if those cases represent the little story, then the puny story must be that in two previous cases a federal judge has ruled that the individual mandate is perfectly constitutional.

But because of today's ruling, in which a conservative judge appointed by George W. Bush became the first magistrate to rule against the individual mandate, conservatives are rejoicing about the demise (caveat: in the Eastern District of Virginia until the case is overturned on appeal) of a provision they once supported. Orrin Hatch, today:

Today is a great day for liberty.

So why hasn't it been struck down in Massachusetts too? I understand they have something up there called RomneyCare which has a mandate.

Vicente says

So why hasn’t it been struck down in Massachusetts too? I understand they have something up there called RomneyCare which has a mandate.

Massachusetts is very similar to the Soviet Socialist State of California. The only surprise to me is why CA hasn't attempted the same thing.

It's only constitutional if Americans believe it is. I personally do not believe government has a right to force me to buy a product from a private entity. Because if they start on that path, they won't stop there.

Social Security and Medicare are different, because these are full government programs. If Medicare was ran by United or BlueCross or Bank of America I'd be against it too.

I personally think it is completely unconstitutional because there is NO public option. Besides in this country insurance only makes healthcare more expensive.

ChrisV says

I personally do not believe government has a right to force me to buy a product from a private entity

Actually they don't. Just pay the extra "I'm Stupid!" tax instead and you can remain outside the medical insurance system. Good luck with that.

This is like not wearing your seatbelt. You're free to do so, but it will cost you, perhaps via a trip out the side window.

I personally think it is completely unconstitutional because there is NO public option

The point of the mandate is to break the adverse selection / moral hazard logjam of the current system.

The public option would be nice but there's it's no magic program that's going to lower costs. BCBS has much more negotiating power than a public option.

Besides in this country insurance only makes healthcare more expensive.

Very true, so we will need further government intervention in the market eventually.

But with the hyper-political arrangements we have today, we'll be lucky to get ObamaCare. Gonna depend on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy gets up on, alas.

Vicente says

So why hasn’t it been struck down in Massachusetts too? I understand they have something up there called RomneyCare which has a mandate.

States are bound by their own Constitutions, as is the Fed with its.

RayAmerica says

At least one Federal Judge understands the Constitution. Mandating American citizens to purchase, under penalty of law, private health insurance is clearly unconstitutional. This ruling is a step in the right direction in getting Obamacare overturned.

Yes. And next we need to overrule mandatory auto liability insurance.

It's the same thing basically. People without health insurance are making others liable should they require some sort of catastrophic care.

Seriously though, if we don't have mandated insurance, then the only other sensible option is to have Medicare for all. Wth, Medicare pays for the most expensive stuff already anyway.

When people cite our poor care compared to other countries, you should know the cause: It's one more instance of stupid easy to manipulate Americans getting pushed around by corporations.

marcus says

Yes. And next we need to overrule mandatory auto liability insurance.
It’s the same thing basically.

This is the same leftist dribble that I hear over and over again. The two are not even remotely close to being the same. Obtaining a driver's license is a PRIVALAGE granted by the state that you live in ... it is NOT a RIGHT. If you doubt this, ask any law enforcement officer or judge. If you want to opt out of buying auto insurance you can. It's your decision whether or not to drive, it is not being forced on you. Furthermore, the fines for being caught without auto insurance are relatively small. Nice try Marcus, but you'll need to come up with a better illustration.

Troy says

ChrisV says

I personally do not believe government has a right to force me to buy a product from a private entity

Actually they don’t. Just pay the extra “I’m Stupid!” tax instead and you can remain outside the medical insurance system. Good luck with that.
This is like not wearing your seatbelt. You’re free to do so, but it will cost you, perhaps via a trip out the side window.
I personally think it is completely unconstitutional because there is NO public option
The point of the mandate is to break the adverse selection / moral hazard logjam of the current system.
The public option would be nice but there’s it’s no magic program that’s going to lower costs. BCBS has much more negotiating power than a public option.
Besides in this country insurance only makes healthcare more expensive.
Very true, so we will need further government intervention in the market eventually.
But with the hyper-political arrangements we have today, we’ll be lucky to get ObamaCare. Gonna depend on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy gets up on, alas.

The whole reform the way it is now it's just going to drive up costs. My wife works for a health insurance company so I'm telling you the unfiltered unbiased reality which you will never see on television or spoken by a politician. Costs will be going up, and going up a LOT.

Key terms:
Provider Network (PN) - a chain of hospitals and doctors that negotiate in a group. Think of it as a union. For example in San Diego there is only one PN which is "Scripps" and their prices are much higher than Los Angles because there is no competition.
Insurance Company - self explanatory.

This is how every single insurance negotiation goes between an insurance company and a PN:
PN: We are increasing our prices by 40% next year.
Insurance: we cant pass on that much of a cost.
.... after all the haggling they settle anywhere from 15% to 20% increases which gets spread out to all insured. Just so you know, minimum increase is 12% which is considered the "trend".

This happens every year, and reform did nothing to change this. Prices will be only going up with no single payer system to force hospitals to take less. And now insurance prices will also have to include million dollar (yes no exaggeration, million dollar claims [per patient] for hemophilia, cancer, diabetes, etc..) for preexisting conditions.

Reform did a few good things, they stopped some practices that were terrible and it did limit insurance profits. But that is only half of the problem, literally just half. As the reform did nothing about costs, because it has no single payer system and nothing to cap how much PN's can increase their prices.

A brief but good synopsis of Judge Hudson's ruling as provided by the Cato Institute:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/obamacare-comes-up-against-the-constitution/

RayAmerica says

A brief but good synopsis of Judge Hudson’s ruling as provided by the Cato Institute:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/obamacare-comes-up-against-the-constitution/

Yes, because Cato institute is so highly regarded as an unbiased reporter of events....

tatupu70 says

Yes, because Cato institute is so highly regarded as an unbiased reporter of events….

I get it. You have a prejudice against Cato, so EVERYTHING they say must be false? Right? Thank you for the excellent illustration of the closed mind of the left. I'll bet you were one of the several dozen listeners to "Air America" before it went bankrupt.

Ray, you're a laugh riot. If Cato (libertarian think tank) is beyond reproach, then so must be the the DailyKos take on the ruling, referencing Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: Finally, the right finds someone willing to take its side on health care reform. After two judges ruled to uphold it, and 14 dismissed challenges to it, a district judge out of Virginia rules part of the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. In our third story, he just happens to own part of a Republican strategy firm that advocated against health care reform. The company, which took 9,000 dollars this year from one of its clients, the attorney general who filed the case on which this judge just ruled.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/12/14/928990/-Dean:-Hudson-ruling-doesnt-threaten-health-reform

shrekgrinch says

If SCOTUS rules for the mandate…then the entire concept of the federal government having enumerated powers iwill be shot to hell. That is the illogical conclusion of Wickard vs. Fillburn and similar case law that the Supremes will have to deal with.

Precisely what I believe is behind the insane, unpopular push for this program. This is a back door move for power and control over the American people. The radical left has always held the original intent of the Constitution in disdain (as fully illustrated by FDR). If this were to go through, literally, you can say goodbye to this nation as far as a constitutional republic goes. There will never be any further serious arguments in the future using the Constitution as far as original intent is concerned. History has proven that once freedom is relinquished to centralized power, it is never fully restored without an awful lot of human suffering. And even then, it is never the same as it once was.

RayAmerica says

This is a back door move for power and control over the American people.

Because clearly you know, it couldn't be about HEALTH CARE, because God knows that's not an issue anyone in this country actually is concerned about. It's good that we have you here to see through these veils. How does this tie together with flouridation of our water supply General Turgeson?

Vicente says

How does this tie together with flouridation of our water supply General Turgeson?

Laugh all you want. When the government gains more centralized power, the cost is always individual freedom. Healthcare represents 1/6 of our entire economy, and yet, you are willing to give this power to the same government that orchestrated the Gulf of Tonkin, maneuvered Japan into attacking us (predictably via FDR's embargo of the island nation), WMDs in Iraq, "fighting" the Taliban in Afghanistan, etc. etc. Just keep putting all your faith and trust in the government Vincente, they have proven they are so worthy.

shrekgrinch says

They just are following the path of least resistance. As far as constitutions go, ours has one of the most difficult amendment procedures in place. Basically, in order for an amendment to pass and ratify, a super-majority of geographical support (the states) have to go along with that.
It’s much easier to just dream up BS like ‘living document’ and stack the courts with judges who will play along, like that other Clinton-appointee who ruled it constitutional basically because the judge thinks the feds can do whatever the hell they like. That Affirmative Action Retard Justice Sonja is of the same caliber.
It is quite a rational strategy for the Left and you can’t argue that it hasn’t worked, because it has. What is surprising is that one can find a means of binding the word ‘rational’ with ‘Left’ in any context. I know, its hard to accept– but facts are facts.

Very well stated ... I agree 100%. What the left refuses to recognize is that Hitler did similar things in Germany. He gained "temporary" dictatorial powers (Chavez is attempting the exact same thing right now) via the "Enabling Act of 1933," legally passed through the Reichstag. Hitler correctly understood the German people in that, the Germans notoriously believed in legal authority. It was only after it was too late to do anything about it that they realized their freedoms had vanished. FDR (another totalitarian) attempted to stack the court in order to achieve what he knew was unconstitutional. A case in point is Schechter v. United States which challenged FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act on Constitutional grounds. Amazingly, this small Kosher slaughterhouse took FDR and the New Deal all the way to the Supreme Court .... and won. We need more of these types of patriots to come to the aid of our country before it is too late, and we find, like the Germans did, that freedom is not easily won back once it is lost.

http://flattopshistorywarpolitics.yuku.com/topic/1323

RayAmerica says

Laugh all you want.

Oh believe me I laugh plenty. You have brought me the LIGHT and proved to me that government does not involve consent of the governed, and is in fact part of some vast conspiracy. We'll all end up herded into FEMA death camps and when we've worked our share building the cathedral to Communism, we'll be roasted over fires to feed our alien masters.

Vicente says

Oh believe me I laugh plenty. You have brought me the LIGHT and proved to me that government does not involve consent of the governed, and is in fact part of some vast conspiracy. We’ll all end up herded into FEMA death camps and when we’ve worked our share building the cathedral to Communism, we’ll be roasted over fires to feed our alien masters.

Germany was the most educated nation in Europe. It also can be argued that it was far more advanced culturally than our own. And yet, it produced Hitler and the Nazis. What makes you think such a thing could never happen here? I have known many people that lived under Stalin and the Iron Curtain that immigrated here and became American citizens. The one common sentiment they have expressed over and over again is that America is making the same mistakes that Russia and Europe made prior to totalitarianism. I guess these people, that lived it, are all fools and you're the genius.

RayAmerica says

all fools and you’re the genius.

Any fool can say:

Hitler liked Disney, I mean a *lot*.
People here love Disney and let it get away with murder
Oh noes Nazis!

Because some numbskull somewhere can draw a bunch of boxes connecting this to that, and hey this is sorta like that and thefore NAZI, doesn't prove anything beyond that Glenn Beck will always have an audience.

Astoundingly enough there are countries living under the horror of universal healthcare for decades without gassing undesirables. Their restraint against their natural desire to herd the populace into death camps, flies uncomfortably in the face of people who see totalitarians in all their enemies, but of course never in themselves. It's astounding the Canadians aren't streaming over the border with bullets whizzing overhead, they've had since what the late '40s for the "nanny state" to blossom into it's natural conclusion of Dachau or Stalin's manufactured famines.

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

Reform did a few good things, they stopped some practices that were terrible and it did limit insurance profits. But that is only half of the problem, literally just half. As the reform did nothing about costs, because it has no single payer system and nothing to cap how much PN’s can increase their prices.

I fully agree with this. Also, since the insurers are now limited to 80-85% MLRs, it's in their interest that costs go up -- every 10% cost rise is another 1.5% of profit they can skim.

Let's face it, the way to get the cost of health care down is to maximize the freedom of private entities to bribe the givernment to let them have a big piece of the pie, even though they don't provide the actual health care. This is freedom. This is the American way that makes me so proud.

About fascism, it's surprising to me that my intuition tells me something so different than what others get from their intuition. Intuition being sort of the sum total of how life experience, logic and emotions inform us.

When I ask myself, who is more likely to cause the government to become fascist, ultimately depriving us of our liberty and quality of life ?

Will it be the big money corporate interests, the super wealthy, and the military industrial complex ?

Or will it the naive lefties who think (big) government can be more focused on services for the ordinary people (but no, not so much that they have no motivation to work).

MY intuition tells me to fear the former destroying this country. Surprisingly, I even see the former being the ones who might destroy the economy. How is it that others can see things so differently ? Mind control ?

The "must buy insurance provision" is not constitutional because it simply forces us all to buy a product from a private entity, which has absolutely 0 guarantees of lowered costs/prices. If insurance companies jack up rates by 300% tomorrow, they can and we'll be all forced to pay these too.

Without public option this one provision of the law isn't constitutional at all.

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

The “must buy insurance provision” is not constitutional because it simply forces us all to buy a product from a private entity, which has absolutely 0 guarantees of lowered costs/prices. If insurance companies jack up rates by 300% tomorrow, they can and we’ll be all forced to pay these too.

Excellent point. What guarantee is there that this won't happen? The relationship between the insurance companies and our politicians is very cozy. In fact, the insurance industry has one of the largest and most powerful lobbies in Washington.

elliemae says

Does the Pope shit in the woods?

I don't believe he does. Probably has a solid gold toilet from his Holy Shit.

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

If insurance companies jack up rates by 300% tomorrow, they can and we’ll be all forced to pay these too.

This assertion is wrong for a number of reasons.

For one, insurers will have to pay out 80-85% of premiums as claims. So *they* can't jack up rates (but providers can).

Also nobody HAS to buy insurance. They can pay the "I'm Stupid" tax instead, which isn't that much a burden compared to current rates, let alone your +300% tomorrow scenario.

There is also the fact that actual cash outgo will be capped at 10.2% of household income due to subsidies. This will cushion all rising health costs for the bottom 80% of America, at the expense of the top 20% who pay most of the federal income taxes.

Of course, this whole thing is going to be moot as the top 20% of the country are now in a cold war with the rest, and this is going to end very badly.

Troy says

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

If insurance companies jack up rates by 300% tomorrow, they can and we’ll be all forced to pay these too.

This assertion is wrong for a number of reasons.
For one, insurers will have to pay out 80-85% of premiums as claims. So *they* can’t jack up rates (but providers can).
Also nobody HAS to buy insurance. They can pay the “I’m Stupid” tax instead, which isn’t that much a burden compared to current rates, let alone your +300% tomorrow scenario.
There is also the fact that actual cash outgo will be capped at 10.2% of household income due to subsidies. This will cushion all rising health costs for the bottom 80% of America, at the expense of the top 20% who pay most of the federal income taxes.
Of course, this whole thing is going to be moot as the top 20% of the country are now in a cold war with the rest, and this is going to end very badly.

Troy, but the way they calculate subsidies will hit big cities unfairly. If you live in LA or NY or any other major city where cost of living is high you will get no subsidy at all, you'll be in that "sweet" spot where you get no benefits but pay for others to have them without actually being able to afford it yourself (because of the high cost of living which isn't factored into the formula).

Also insurance can still increase premiums, if they have to pay 80 to 85% in claims does not mean they can't increase prices or make a deal with the provider network to do so. They are in business to make money after all.

Now if reform put caps on provider network price increases as well, we would have something that would truly control the costs.

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

If you live in LA or NY or any other major city where cost of living is high you will get no subsidy at all

The subsidies end at $90K/yr household income. These people -- you and me I assume -- should have insurance anyway, and I am perfectly happy with paying more insurance for more universal access to the system, because I consider health care a universal right.

If it doesn't work down the road then we will have to fix it. We can do that, theoretically.

Troy says

because I consider health care a universal right.

Just curious. Is that a "right" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?

RayAmerica says

Just curious. Is that a “right” guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.