[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Obamacare: The reckoning (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/23/2012 4:34:13 AM EDT
|
The Washington Post
3/23/2012 Obamacare: The reckoning By Charles Krauthammer http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamacare-the-reckoning/2012/03/22/gIQALF1QUS_story.html Obamacare dominated the 2010 midterms, driving its Democratic authors to a historic electoral shellacking. But since then, the issue has slipped quietly underground. Now it’s back, summoned to the national stage by the confluence of three disparate events: the release of new Congressional Budget Office cost estimates, the approach of Supreme Court hearings on the law’s constitutionality and the issuance of a compulsory contraception mandate... Dear friends: Please read the article before posting, it's well worth your time. Regards, FRIZ |
|
Quoted: Well written and thought out. Lost on at least 50% of our population though.  It sure as hell is. Just click The Hammer's link to the ABC News poll.  The Hammer nails another one. Thanks for the link OP. I am going to visit my liberal uncle next week. Need more ammo. 
|
|
If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy. |
|
That was a very sobering, factual read. I find it scary that should Obamacare stand the Federal Government will be able to order me under penalty of fine or imprisonment to purchase any product they deem necesary. Back during the cold war I never worried too much about the Soviets lobbing nukes because of M.A.D. I didn't see them as batshit crazy enough to punch their own ticket. I now find myself more concerned about what my own governement is going to inflict upon me more than I ever worried about the Soviets. Tis a sad state of affairs.
|
|
Quoted:
If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy. I think that line was crossed a long time go, this is just the most visible indication that the Rubicon is in the rearview mirror. |
|
Quoted:
I will go on the record. It's upheld. The vote doesn't matter. Damn you Nolo!!! You know the weight I give to your opinion on all things legal, and that's how you feel??? WE ARE FUCKED Prepare accordingly. I suspect many of us with employer plans should be ready for our employer to drop coverage as soon as the individual mandate goes into effect. They would save a lot of money and headaches. |
|
Quoted:
If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy. That is what scares me about ObamaCare. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy. That is what scares me about ObamaCare. This pretty much sums it up. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy. That is what scares me about ObamaCare. This pretty much sums it up. That it does.
|
|
Quoted:
When does the USSC rule? Last night Fox news said today, then on Allan West's FB page he says it's next week. Google turns up nothing. I can't find anything on the SC blog.  According to the article posted in the OP, SCOTUS hears arguments beginning Monday. This will probably be their last decision released before they break, which is July, IIRC. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
When does the USSC rule? Last night Fox news said today, then on Allan West's FB page he says it's next week. Google turns up nothing. I can't find anything on the SC blog. According to the article posted in the OP, SCOTUS hears arguments beginning Monday. This will probably be their last decision released before they break, which is July, IIRC. Expect the ruling in June or July, is the way I heard it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I will go on the record. It's upheld. The vote doesn't matter. Damn you Nolo!!! You know the weight I give to your opinion on all things legal, and that's how you feel??? WE ARE FUCKED Prepare accordingly. I suspect many of us with employer plans should be ready for our employer to drop coverage as soon as the individual mandate goes into effect. They would save a lot of money and headaches. just a feeling. none of this matters honestly. .gov is going forward with implementation. what do you think will happen if they overrule it? you think all their implementation goes away? it won't. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I will go on the record. It's upheld. The vote doesn't matter. Damn you Nolo!!! You know the weight I give to your opinion on all things legal, and that's how you feel??? WE ARE FUCKED Prepare accordingly. I suspect many of us with employer plans should be ready for our employer to drop coverage as soon as the individual mandate goes into effect. They would save a lot of money and headaches. just a feeling. none of this matters honestly. .gov is going forward with implementation. what do you think will happen if they overrule it? you think all their implementation goes away? it won't. No, but it may buy us a little more time. The more time we have, the more people we can hopefully wake up to what has been/is going on, and get on board with stopping their plans. Also, if it is found Constitutional, there will be no push by Congress or the next President to actually repeal the whole thing. |
|
Quoted:
Well, Heller went 5-4 in our favor. Maybe we'll get another win. Time to pray, gents.  
__________________________________________________________________ Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.3.2) (and the original thread). «nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus» |
|
Per the article:
"(1) Contraception, sterilization and abortion pills are classified as medical prevention. On whose authority? The secretary of health and human services, invoking the Institute of Medicine. But surely categorizing pregnancy as a disease equivalent is a value decision disguised as science. If contraception is prevention, what are fertility clinics? Disease inducers? And if contraception is prevention because it lessens morbidity and saves money, by that logic, mass sterilization would be the greatest boon to public health since the pasteurization of milk." There's your step towards eugenics (per wikipedia): "Eugenics is the "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population", usually referring to the manipulation of human populations.[2][3]" It is only about control. The only people that benefit are those in power. I still say if the deal is so good, have the three branches of govt use it for ten years & then we'll see the data before making the rest of the populace involved. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I will go on the record. It's upheld. The vote doesn't matter. Damn you Nolo!!! You know the weight I give to your opinion on all things legal, and that's how you feel??? WE ARE FUCKED Prepare accordingly. I suspect many of us with employer plans should be ready for our employer to drop coverage as soon as the individual mandate goes into effect. They would save a lot of money and headaches. just a feeling. none of this matters honestly. .gov is going forward with implementation. what do you think will happen if they overrule it? you think all their implementation goes away? it won't. No, but it may buy us a little more time. The more time we have, the more people we can hopefully wake up to what has been/is going on, and get on board with stopping their plans. Also, if it is found Constitutional, there will be no push by Congress or the next President to actually repeal the whole thing. Well it looks like the Obama 5-year plan stays on schedule then if this is how it pans out. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy. That is what scares me about ObamaCare. That is what scares me about RomneyObamaCare! |
|
Quoted:
I still say if the deal is so good, have the three branches of govt use it for ten years & then we'll see the data before making the rest of the populace involved. I got news for you, the .gov will be the very last entity that will have to go with it. Good for me (in the short-term) but it sure sucks for everyone else. 
|
|
Quoted:
Well, Heller went 5-4 in our favor. Maybe we'll get another win. Time to pray, gents. Praying may not do much good. The "I won't vote for whoever because they're not conservative or libertarian enough so I'll take my toys and pout" people want Obama to stack the SCOTUS full-on liberal. |
|
Quoted:
Well written and thought out. Lost on at least 50% of our population though. If they can force you to buy something by threatening a penalty or fine, then it's not constitutional. And if they do it now, what are they going to mandate you purchase later? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, Heller went 5-4 in our favor. Maybe we'll get another win. Time to pray, gents. Praying may not do much good. The "I won't vote for whoever because they're not conservative or libertarian enough so I'll take my toys and pout" people want Obama to stack the SCOTUS full-on liberal. That's because they aren't. They really are not that much different than obama. If you vote for the 2 major parties you're part of the problem. |
|
Quoted: Yep.Quoted: Well written and thought out. Lost on at least 50% of our population though. I think you're giving the population too much credit. You are more likely to get the correct answer asking random people who came in 3rd on American Idol in 2008 than who is the current VP. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, Heller went 5-4 in our favor. Maybe we'll get another win. Time to pray, gents. Praying may not do much good. The "I won't vote for whoever because they're not conservative or libertarian enough so I'll take my toys and pout" people want Obama to stack the SCOTUS full-on liberal. That's because they aren't. They really are not that much different than obama. If you vote for the 2 major parties you're part of the problem. Different enough to have less liberal SCOTUS picks, and that's what's important. If you don't realize that you're part of the problem described here. If you think Romney would give us more Kagan/Sotomayor picks you're retarded. The bitch of Obamacare is that it is so back-loaded in expenses. The real bill doesn't come due until after Obama would be gone (even if he wins a second term, which you seem to want to happen). Even if a (R) wins in 2016, the dems can blame the cost on them, ironically enough (and the press/public will eat it up). |
|
FTA
In practice, however, questions this momentous are generally decided 5 to 4 — i.e., they depend on whatever side of the bed Justice Anthony Kennedy gets out of that morning.
Remember, the savior Ronald Reagan appointed Kennedy. What a legacy Reagan is leaving. Thanks again Ronald. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, Heller went 5-4 in our favor. Maybe we'll get another win. Time to pray, gents. Praying may not do much good. The "I won't vote for whoever because they're not conservative or libertarian enough so I'll take my toys and pout" people want Obama to stack the SCOTUS full-on liberal. That's because they aren't. They really are not that much different than obama. If you vote for the 2 major parties you're part of the problem. So how did the majority of the SCOTUS become conservative? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only th SC stands between us and overt tyranny. Will the checks and balance still work? Think about that all of you prinicpled Paul-bots. Serious question, how much has Heller and McDonald changed things? You can buy handguns if you live in DC and Chicago. |
|
Quoted:
If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy. I have been bitching since day one that ObamaCare is a radical shift and the destruction of liberty. It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MEDICINE. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only th SC stands between us and overt tyranny. Will the checks and balance still work? Think about that all of you prinicpled Paul-bots. Serious question, how much has Heller and McDonald changed things? You can buy handguns if you live in DC and Chicago. From Wikipedia Post ruling impacts In the District of Columbia
The D.C. government has indicated it will continue to utilize zoning ordinances to prevent firearms dealers from operating and selling to citizens residing in the District, meaning it will continue to be difficult for residents to legally purchase guns in the District.[67] Additionally, the District enacted new firearms restrictions in an effort to cure the constitutional deficits that the Supreme Court had identified in Heller, specifically three new provisions: (1) the firearms registration procedures; (2) the prohibition on assault weapons; and (3) the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices. In response, Dick Heller challenged these new restrictions filing a civil suit named Heller v. District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25) where he requested a summary judgment to vacate the new prohibitions. On March 26, 2010, the D.C. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina denied Dick Heller's request and granted the cross motion, finding that the court "concludes that the regulatory provisions that the plaintiffs challenge permissibly regulate the exercise of the core Second Amendment right to use arms for the purpose of self-defense in the home. "[68] Dick Heller's application to register his semi-automatic pistol was rejected because the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to the District's interpretation, all bottom-loading guns, including magazine-fed non-assault-style rifles, are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.[69] Revolvers will likely not fall under such a ban.[70] On December 16, 2008 the D.C. Council unanimously passed the Firearms Registration Emergency Amendment Act of 2008[71] which addresses the issues raised in the Heller Supreme Court decision, and also puts in place a number of registration requirements to update and strengthen the District's gun laws.[72] Since the June 2008 ruling, over 80 different cases have been heard in lower federal courts on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws.[74] These courts have heard lawsuits in regard to bans of firearm possession by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.[74] Also, cases have been heard on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and/or specific types of weapons attachments. In addition, courts have heard challenges to laws barring guns in post offices and near schools and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, carrying of concealed weapons, types of ammunition and possession of unregistered firearms.[74] The courts have upheld every one of these laws as being constitutional. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only th SC stands between us and overt tyranny. Will the checks and balance still work? Think about that all of you prinicpled Paul-bots. Serious question, how much has Heller and McDonald changed things? You can buy handguns if you live in DC and Chicago. From Wikipedia Post ruling impacts In the District of Columbia
The D.C. government has indicated it will continue to utilize zoning ordinances to prevent firearms dealers from operating and selling to citizens residing in the District, meaning it will continue to be difficult for residents to legally purchase guns in the District.[67] Additionally, the District enacted new firearms restrictions in an effort to cure the constitutional deficits that the Supreme Court had identified in Heller, specifically three new provisions: (1) the firearms registration procedures; (2) the prohibition on assault weapons; and (3) the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices. In response, Dick Heller challenged these new restrictions filing a civil suit named Heller v. District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25) where he requested a summary judgment to vacate the new prohibitions. On March 26, 2010, the D.C. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina denied Dick Heller's request and granted the cross motion, finding that the court "concludes that the regulatory provisions that the plaintiffs challenge permissibly regulate the exercise of the core Second Amendment right to use arms for the purpose of self-defense in the home. "[68] Dick Heller's application to register his semi-automatic pistol was rejected because the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to the District's interpretation, all bottom-loading guns, including magazine-fed non-assault-style rifles, are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.[69] Revolvers will likely not fall under such a ban.[70] On December 16, 2008 the D.C. Council unanimously passed the Firearms Registration Emergency Amendment Act of 2008[71] which addresses the issues raised in the Heller Supreme Court decision, and also puts in place a number of registration requirements to update and strengthen the District's gun laws.[72] Since the June 2008 ruling, over 80 different cases have been heard in lower federal courts on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws.[74] These courts have heard lawsuits in regard to bans of firearm possession by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.[74] Also, cases have been heard on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and/or specific types of weapons attachments. In addition, courts have heard challenges to laws barring guns in post offices and near schools and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, carrying of concealed weapons, types of ammunition and possession of unregistered firearms.[74] The courts have upheld every one of these laws as being constitutional. I repeat, you can now buy handguns if you live in DC and Chicago. Yes, the douche bags are fighting to limit it but they won't be able to stop it over the long term. They lost, it is only a matter of time before the rest of their house of cards collapses IMHO. Heller and McDonald were a HUGE game changer. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy. I have been bitching since day one that ObamaCare is a radical shift and the destruction of liberty. It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MEDICINE. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy. I think that line was crossed a long time go, this is just the most visible indication that the Rubicon is in the rearview mirror. It was crossed by Wickard v Filburn during the FDR days. ALL the other right stomping can be traced back to that ONE USSC decision... When a court can decide that wheat grow inside a single state for consumption inside that same single state can be controlled under the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE, then ANY result desired can be concocted!! Hitler & Stalin would have hired the majority voters on that court.
|
|
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/analysis-why-u-high-court-may-uphold-healthcare-233316172.html
Not that conservative court-watchers like to broadcast such a view in this combustible atmosphere. "It's almost like they're confessing to some secret vice when they say they don't think (the law) should be struck down," said former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Michael McConnell, a George W. Bush appointee who now teaches at Stanford Law School, referring to some fellow conservatives. Several legal experts who do not necessarily favor the law, but bet it will survive, point to the decisions of two leading conservative federal appellate judges who already have sided with the Obama administration. The core of its healthcare law is a requirement that most people in the United States buy insurance by 2014. more at link... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy. I have been bitching since day one that ObamaCare is a radical shift and the destruction of liberty. It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MEDICINE. picking winners and losers is about to get personal. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only th SC stands between us and overt tyranny. Will the checks and balance still work? Think about that all of you prinicpled Paul-bots. Serious question, how much has Heller and McDonald changed things? You can buy handguns if you live in DC and Chicago. From Wikipedia Post ruling impacts In the District of Columbia
The D.C. government has indicated it will continue to utilize zoning ordinances to prevent firearms dealers from operating and selling to citizens residing in the District, meaning it will continue to be difficult for residents to legally purchase guns in the District.[67] Additionally, the District enacted new firearms restrictions in an effort to cure the constitutional deficits that the Supreme Court had identified in Heller, specifically three new provisions: (1) the firearms registration procedures; (2) the prohibition on assault weapons; and (3) the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices. In response, Dick Heller challenged these new restrictions filing a civil suit named Heller v. District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25) where he requested a summary judgment to vacate the new prohibitions. On March 26, 2010, the D.C. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina denied Dick Heller's request and granted the cross motion, finding that the court "concludes that the regulatory provisions that the plaintiffs challenge permissibly regulate the exercise of the core Second Amendment right to use arms for the purpose of self-defense in the home. "[68] Dick Heller's application to register his semi-automatic pistol was rejected because the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to the District's interpretation, all bottom-loading guns, including magazine-fed non-assault-style rifles, are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.[69] Revolvers will likely not fall under such a ban.[70] On December 16, 2008 the D.C. Council unanimously passed the Firearms Registration Emergency Amendment Act of 2008[71] which addresses the issues raised in the Heller Supreme Court decision, and also puts in place a number of registration requirements to update and strengthen the District's gun laws.[72] Since the June 2008 ruling, over 80 different cases have been heard in lower federal courts on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws.[74] These courts have heard lawsuits in regard to bans of firearm possession by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.[74] Also, cases have been heard on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and/or specific types of weapons attachments. In addition, courts have heard challenges to laws barring guns in post offices and near schools and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, carrying of concealed weapons, types of ammunition and possession of unregistered firearms.[74] The courts have upheld every one of these laws as being constitutional. I repeat, you can now buy handguns if you live in DC and Chicago. Yes, the douche bags are fighting to limit it but they won't be able to stop it over the long term. They lost, it is only a matter of time before the rest of their house of cards collapses IMHO. Heller and McDonald were a HUGE game changer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller Scroll down to post ruling impacts. I don't see much game changing. Further, Where are you going to buy handguns in DC? Where are you getting your information? http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/owning-gun-washington-may-get-easier The report notes, for example, that “In order for an individual to purchase a handgun outside the District and register that handgun in the District, the transfer of the firearm to its purchaser, pursuant to federal law, must occur through a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL).” Currently, however, there is only one individual in the District operating an FFL (for which ”market forces are largely to blame,” we’re invited to believe), and recently that licensee temporarily lost his license. In such circumstances in the future, the report continues, “the District government may seek a license to operate as an FFL” — not “shall,” but “may.”
|