US Supreme Court and Obamacare

24 posts / 0 new
Last post
dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
US Supreme Court and Obamacare

The first three days of this week the US Supreme Court will be hearing arguments on the constitutional legitimacy of the part of Obamacare called the "individual mandate". The case the Obama people are trying to make is it is allowed under the commerce clause in the constitution. Actually, there is no support for the individual mandate in the commerce clause so I find it surprising that they are trying to make that case. A link to Article 1 Section 8 (the commerce clause) is below:

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

They are claiming the right to force individuals to purchase insurance (or anything else if this is not stopped) under the portion shown below:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

They are claiming this right through the "among the several States" clause. If you read Federalist Papers number 41 you will see that Madison was dead set against just this kind of Federal Government behavior. The link is below:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

Madison's interest was free trade between the states. He wanted congress to have to authority to enforce free trade between the states. In other words, NY for instance, could not put an import duty on goods brought across the state line from NJ. He wanted the free flow of goods to be just like the free flow of people between the states. He thought this was essential to being a nation of states.

If the US Supreme court does its duty to the constitution and the people of this country it will disallow the individual mandate. It is simply not constitutional. There has never been anything like it in the history of the country. They are trying to force you to pay just because you exist. It is a tax on existing. If that is allowed then the Federal Government can make you do anything against your will. There is no limit at that point. It gives the Federal Government the power of a dictatorship. The constitution was clearly!--break--> designed to limit the power of the Federal Government. Only the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 are allocated to the Federal Government. All others revert to the states or the people.

Obamacare claims to "give" free medical to 30 million additional people. It is important to remember that in order to give something to one person the Federal Government must take it from another. There is no such thing as free medical care or free anything else. The Federal Government is breaking the back of the financial system of the country. In 50 years we have gone from the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the world and all of human history.

As of last month we are now spending 50% more than we are taking in as revenue to the Federal Government. The dems pull the class warfare card to try to justify this. However, they depend on weak critical thinking skills in the general population to be successful in this. The facts are the top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of the fed income taxes. The top 1% pays 38% of the fed taxes. 47% of the population pays no fed income taxes at all. Many of them actually receive a positive cash flow from the tax system. If you confiscate all the wealth of all the richest people in America it would balance the fed spending deficit for one year. What are you going to do the next year ? In February the Federal Reserve's "operation twist" purchased 91% of all the 20+ year Treasury instruments. That is direct monitization of the deficit spending. That can not go on for long as it is unsustainable. The Federal Reserve's Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) is causing all kinds of distortions in the markets. It is squeezing people on fixed incomes real bad. It is a disincentive to saving money. America needs capital - savings. People need to save. You can not borrow your way to prosperity. That never works. ZIRP is designed to keep interest rates artificially low so the Federal Government can borrow incredible sums of money to support the welfare state it has created even though the underlying economy of the country is no longer able to sustain that level of federal government spending. This is leading to a very serious situation in the next year or so. The world is starting to lose confidence in America's ability to make responsible financial decisions. The federal government can not cut spending back to inbound revenue levels as it will cause civil unrest as the class of entitlement is deprived of their food and housing. No politician is going to sign up for that. A reduction back to revenue would also result in a reduction of 8% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) thus throwing America into a depression. So if they stop over spending we end up in a depression. If they keep over spending there will in heavy inflation and a substantial reduction in the standard of living.

If you have not already done so, you should start considering on how to prepare for either of the two most likely outcomes.

 

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 849
Nuts

Kagan claims that by a person NOT buying health insurance, they are driving up the price for those that do and are thereby "engaging in commerce". At what point do these people leave their effing senses behind? How does a person reach that level with such a profound disconnect from reality?

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
MarkM wrote: Kagan claims
MarkM wrote:

Kagan claims that by a person NOT buying health insurance, they are driving up the price for those that do and are thereby "engaging in commerce". At what point do these people leave their effing senses behind? How does a person reach that level with such a profound disconnect from reality?

It does not surprise me at all. I have been listening to Bloomberg radio this week and their coverage usually does not even mention the word "constitution". That is amazing as the entire issue is about the constitution. For me this conclusively proves there is an unreasonable liberal bias in the main stream news media. If I had any doubts before, I do not have any now. The vast majority of the media coverage is about all the reasons to do Obamacare and there is very little coverage of the fact it is unconstitutional - which is the reason 26 states got together and forced it into the Supreme Court. I do not remember a time when 26 states got together and pushed an issue to the US Supreme Court. It is a major event and should be reported to the population in a factual manner.. The fact that it is not being presented in a factual manner is a bad sign in my opinion. I am not a big conspiracy guy but I swear this smells like a conspiracy. How could all the main stream media outlets try to sell it on its emotional merits when the major under lying issue is the unconstitutional, budget busting., frankly unamerican aspects ? It is a sad story and I believe that it tells a story.

Ken C's picture
Ken C
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 13 2009
Posts: 753
1984 or is it Catch 22??

By not participating in commerce you effect commerce therefore you must be participating commerce.

 

 

 

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Wickard v. Filburn

It is just the "logic" used in Wickard v. Filburn taken to its logical conclusion. 

Even Scalia was ok using similar twisted "logic" for Gonzales v. Raich.

It's game over.  Belief in limited government makes about as much sense as belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1988
yes, goes

Even Scalia was ok using similar twisted "logic" for Gonzales v. Raich.

It's game over.  Belief in limited government makes about as much sense as belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

 

Sadly true. Although Scalia did crack me up with his comment that reading the entire 2,000-plus page healthcare bill was "cruel and unusual punishement."

 

 

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Somehow we have to do it...

Somehow we have to get control over the government back to being in the best interest of the nation and the people.  I am not sure how you do that.  Examine the following -

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/presenting-americas-political-apathy-voter...

This is not good.  If he silent majority do not vote we are not going to be able to get our out of control government back under control. 

sofistek's picture
sofistek
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 818
Who to vote for?

It's not just the US; half of those countries had 1/3 or more not voting. That's very poor.

But who do those silent majority vote for, to get your government under control? I don't see that the choice makes much difference.

Tony

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Voting is not the answer.
dshields wrote:

Somehow we have to get control over the government back to being in the best interest of the nation and the people.  I am not sure how you do that.  Examine the following -

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/presenting-americas-political-apathy-voter...

This is not good.  If he silent majority do not vote we are not going to be able to get our out of control government back under control. 

I will happily pull the lever for Ron Paul if he is on the ballot.  Short of that, I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils because in the end, you are still supporting evil.  It is probably best to support a 3rd party that cannot win or withhold your vote completely.  Why let them think they have our consent?   In the end, I don't think voting really matters much.  If it did, they would make it illegal.

After all how many empires fell because of an election?  Did the USSR collapse because of an election?  No, empires collapse due to decay and internal contradictions, not elections.  In the past I have always voted primarily upon economic issues first and foremost, but I am not sure I will do so going forward.  At this point It seems to me a debt based economic collapse is inevitable and it really does not matter who is in charge or what their policies are.  All the current government stupidity will eventually be self repealing. 

The most important issues we now face are civil liberties and war.  Civil liberties are important because if a collapse occurs, we can not afford to have a government that represses its own citizens, trying to sustain that which is unsustainable.  To the USSR's credit, when their empire collased in the late 80's - early 90s, they choose to fade away instead of internally cracking down or using it as an excuse to attack the outside.  I can only hope the US acts as responsibly.  As for War, we just cannot continue to believe that somehow we are special and the rules do not apply to us.  That sort of thinking is going to get a lot of Americans killed someday and I don't want it to be my sons that end up paying the price.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Afraid you are right...
sofistek wrote:

It's not just the US; half of those countries had 1/3 or more not voting. That's very poor.

But who do those silent majority vote for, to get your government under control? I don't see that the choice makes much difference.

Tony

I am afraid you are right.  Obama + Mitt = Obamney

Obama is more left than Mitt.  Paul is actually a conservative.  When he says we need to turn right and head back toward the constitution he is correct.  We are a long way from there.  I do not see it happening.  It is a sad story.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
RNcarl's picture
RNcarl
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 13 2008
Posts: 382
safewrite wrote: Even
safewrite wrote:

Even Scalia was ok using similar twisted "logic" for Gonzales v. Raich.

It's game over.  Belief in limited government makes about as much sense as belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

 

Sadly true. Although Scalia did crack me up with his comment that reading the entire 2,000-plus page healthcare bill was "cruel and unusual punishement."

It sounded like he was making a mockery of the bill.

Which for me, is fine.

.... but I think that, it is interesting that the supreme court has taken this case up so quickly. I am not sure if the whole idea wasn't to get the "individual mandate" thrown out anyway. Makes the argument for a single payor system better if it does.

As always, I say, follow the dollar. Find out who REALLY benefits from the bill either way. I say it is the same entity - the insurance companies.

Very, very few, could afford "health care" in this country if they had to pay for it themselves. I don't mean pay for your "health insurance" and then they pay the practitioner, I mean - pay for the service yourself, like you pay the mechanic for your car.

Historically, "health care" was only available to the rich. The "unwashed masses" scratched for whatever mercy or charity there was. Look in the industrial cities of the late nineteenth and very early twentieth century and you will find "private" hospitals centered around the "wealthy" neighborhoods. Yes, there will be "free" clinics for the "unwashed" masses in some locations, but the most prestigious hospitals are near old Victorian upper class neighborhoods. (you know, the neighborhoods that you would not walk in at night today) There are exceptions of course. Some industrialists did not want "sick people" near their homes. They would buy tracts of land on the "outskirts" of the city to build the hospitals well beyond the sight of their mansions.

Then something happened in the mid twentieth century that has been discussed elsewhere, more surgeons were graduated than there were "rich people" to care for. Co-ops of sort sprung up for working groups of people to "pre-pay" for services. Somewhere along the line the Blue Cross and Blue Shield system was born. Shortly after that, once the financiers figured out how to make a buck off of the "spread" between the pool of money and services rendered... the modern "health care" system (industry) was off to the races.

So, we can squabble about health care reform (which that label is as big a joke as obamacare) as in its constitutionality of "making" someone buy insurance or if it will bankrupt the gooberment even more or if it will belay our national morals by mandating coverage for contraception.

The fact is, whatever the outcome of the supreme court's decision, a very few will keep getting rich by exploiting our sick and injured.

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
The Healthcare Oligarchy
RNcarl wrote:
safewrite wrote:

Even Scalia was ok using similar twisted "logic" for Gonzales v. Raich.

It's game over.  Belief in limited government makes about as much sense as belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

 

Sadly true. Although Scalia did crack me up with his comment that reading the entire 2,000-plus page healthcare bill was "cruel and unusual punishement."

It sounded like he was making a mockery of the bill.

Which for me, is fine.

.... but I think that, it is interesting that the supreme court has taken this case up so quickly. I am not sure if the whole idea wasn't to get the "individual mandate" thrown out anyway. Makes the argument for a single payor system better if it does.

As always, I say, follow the dollar. Find out who REALLY benefits from the bill either way. I say it is the same entity - the insurance companies.

Very, very few, could afford "health care" in this country if they had to pay for it themselves. I don't mean pay for your "health insurance" and then they pay the practitioner, I mean - pay for the service yourself, like you pay the mechanic for your car.

Historically, "health care" was only available to the rich. The "unwashed masses" scratched for whatever mercy or charity there was. Look in the industrial cities of the late nineteenth and very early twentieth century and you will find "private" hospitals centered around the "wealthy" neighborhoods. Yes, there will be "free" clinics for the "unwashed" masses in some locations, but the most prestigious hospitals are near old Victorian upper class neighborhoods. (you know, the neighborhoods that you would not walk in at night today) There are exceptions of course. Some industrialists did not want "sick people" near their homes. They would buy tracts of land on the "outskirts" of the city to build the hospitals well beyond the sight of their mansions.

Then something happened in the mid twentieth century that has been discussed elsewhere, more surgeons were graduated than there were "rich people" to care for. Co-ops of sort sprung up for working groups of people to "pre-pay" for services. Somewhere along the line the Blue Cross and Blue Shield system was born. Shortly after that, once the financiers figured out how to make a buck off of the "spread" between the pool of money and services rendered... the modern "health care" system (industry) was off to the races.

So, we can squabble about health care reform (which that label is as big a joke as obamacare) as in its constitutionality of "making" someone buy insurance or if it will bankrupt the gooberment even more or if it will belay our national morals by mandating coverage for contraception.

The fact is, whatever the outcome of the supreme court's decision, a very few will keep getting rich by exploiting our sick and injured.

Where can I get a good book that talks about the history of healthcare in America? Your description here of the financialization of healthcare seems to be wiped clean from the collective memory of America. The takeover of the healthcare debate and legislation by the Health Insurance Industry back when Obamacare was squeezed out is pretty well documented. 

Wala! ...now the for-profit healthcare industry has even more captive customers.

On another observation, Scalia hardly seems to be unbiased:

Koch Brothers' Bircheresque political retreats:

When the conservative financier Charles Koch sent out invitations for a political retreat in Palm Springs later this month, he highlighted past appearances at the gathering of “notable leaders” like Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court.

zklemmer's picture
zklemmer
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 1 2012
Posts: 1
Pelosi, Obama, ACA and Totalitarianism

 Doctor Szasz said it best in this quote:

 

 

“From the descriptive point of view, the difference between the physician and the veterinarian is that the former treats human diseases or sick people, whereas the latter treats animal diseases or sick animals. From the moral and political point of view, the difference between them is that the physician is expected to be the agent of the persons who are his patients, whereas the veterinarian is expected to be the agent of persons who own sick animals. In proportion, then, as the physician becomes the agent of the State and in proportion as the State is totalitarian, the physician becomes, from a moral and political point of view, a veterinarian- that is, the agent of a State who owns its citizens, just as the farmer owns his animals. This is why killing animals is part of the normal function of the veterinarian and why incarcerating people is, and killing them may yet become, a part of the normal function of the physician employed by the Therapeutic State.”

--Dr. Thomas Szasz

 

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
The herd is restless as the butcher sharpens the knives.
zklemmer wrote:

 Doctor Szasz said it best in this quote:

 

 

“From the descriptive point of view, the difference between the physician and the veterinarian is that the former treats human diseases or sick people, whereas the latter treats animal diseases or sick animals. From the moral and political point of view, the difference between them is that the physician is expected to be the agent of the persons who are his patients, whereas the veterinarian is expected to be the agent of persons who own sick animals. In proportion, then, as the physician becomes the agent of the State and in proportion as the State is totalitarian, the physician becomes, from a moral and political point of view, a veterinarian- that is, the agent of a State who owns its citizens, just as the farmer owns his animals. This is why killing animals is part of the normal function of the veterinarian and why incarcerating people is, and killing them may yet become, a part of the normal function of the physician employed by the Therapeutic State.”

--Dr. Thomas Szasz

 

+1

A most insightful observation. I had for,  a while now,  noted how our government and elected officials seemed to approach the treatment of the citizenry much as a farmer viewed his livestock: as a commodity to be managed. This brings the health care debate into clearer focus, at least for me.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Nasty Business...

If I am not mistaken, Ron Paul (who I like better and better) once stated that he was not all stirred up over Obamacare as it was "self repealing". I believe he went on to explain that since it could not be paid for it was self repealing. I need to look this up and verify he said this. However, whoever said it, has a good point. The stated goal of Obamacare was to "give" free medical care to 30 million new people. The thought that the American people would believe that 30 million people could be given free medical care at no cost is a tribute to our failed education system. Nobody who applied any critical thinking skills would believe that. Remember, in order for the government to "give" something to someone it has to first take it away from someone else one way or another.

Why the people of America believe that with a huge negative trade balance and consumption exceeded production we can enact huge new government programs is a mystery to me.  It is going to end up in some form of nasty business as the numbers just don't add up.

 

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
Brave New Brain

It was twenty years earlier, somewhere near the peak of psychiatry’s promise, that Szasz published his declaration of war, called The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct (1961). His title was not hyperbole. “Psychiatry is conventionally defined as a medical specialty concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mental diseases,” he wrote. “I submit that this definition, which is still widely accepted, places psychiatry in the company of alchemy and astrology and commits it to the category of pseudoscience. The reason for this is that there is no such thing as ‘mental illness.’” Szasz’s attack targeted the cornerstone of modern American psychiatry: the marriage of mind and molecule, the notion that behavior can safely be classified as “sickness” and that the mind can safely be “treated” just like any other organ. In calling that marriage a sham, Szasz mocked the efforts of almost every major American psychiatrist back to Benjamin Rush, the profession’s founding father. “The subjects [mental diseases] have hitherto been enveloped in mystery,” Rush wrote in the late eighteenth century. “I have endeavored to bring them down to the level of all other diseases of the human body, and to show that the mind and the body are moved by the same causes and subject to the same laws.” This was the error Szasz aimed to correct.

Some hailed The Myth of Mental Illness as a work of genius; others saw it as a pernicious attack or foolish waste of time. The book made Szasz a public figure, and by the late 1960s he was perhaps the most famous psychiatrist in America. Among peers, he was also the most despised and most feared—a bitter, well-educated critic with a sharp pen. He was, above all, a master of the analogy. “To put it succinctly,” he wrote, “Guillotin made it easier for the condemned to die and Charcot [early champion of the disease model of mental illness] made it easier for the sufferer, then commonly called a malingerer, to be sick. It may be argued that when dealing with the hopeless and helpless, these are real accomplishments. Still I would maintain that Guillotin’s and Charcot’s interventions were not acts of liberation but were rather processes of narcotization and tranquilization.”

Today, of course, Szasz is mostly remembered, if he is remembered at all, as the great silly, a flat-earth adherent in the time of telescopes and globes. Most medical students graduate without ever hearing his name. Peers who once grappled fiercely with his ideas are now surprised to find out he is still alive. His voluminous writings largely gather dust in libraries and used book stores. At a 1996 debate, well-known psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey summed up the sentiment nicely with a joke that began: “Let me ask an important question. And this is a question that will be asked by future generations. The question is: Who was Dr. Szasz?” Few in the audience needed a punch line. The question itself was dénouement enough. “If he is unable to acknowledge his big mistake,” Torrey finished, “I think the answer to the question will be: ‘Dr Szasz was the man who wrote The Cat in the Hat, Hop on Pop and Horton Hatches the Egg.’” The audience roared.

One can hardly be surprised if Szasz has assumed the role reserved for all failed revolutionaries—a marker of backwardness against which to measure our enlightenment, his name a synonym for error. The disease model of mental illness is now so central to American medicine and culture that the most common response to Szasz—aside from utter disregard—is typically something like: “Just look around—anguished teenagers, depressed adults, distracted children. Only a fool would believe that mental illness is a myth.” Indeed, to the modern psychiatric mind, rejecting the legitimacy of mental illness is not just an error but an act of inhumanity, leaving the sick without the hope of a cure. The Szaszians of the world are not just fools but monsters.

 

Link

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
all your bodies are belong to us
earthwise wrote:
zklemmer wrote:

 Doctor Szasz said it best in this quote:

 

 

“From the descriptive point of view, the difference between the physician and the veterinarian is that the former treats human diseases or sick people, whereas the latter treats animal diseases or sick animals. From the moral and political point of view, the difference between them is that the physician is expected to be the agent of the persons who are his patients, whereas the veterinarian is expected to be the agent of persons who own sick animals. In proportion, then, as the physician becomes the agent of the State and in proportion as the State is totalitarian, the physician becomes, from a moral and political point of view, a veterinarian- that is, the agent of a State who owns its citizens, just as the farmer owns his animals. This is why killing animals is part of the normal function of the veterinarian and why incarcerating people is, and killing them may yet become, a part of the normal function of the physician employed by the Therapeutic State.”

--Dr. Thomas Szasz

 

+1

A most insightful observation. I had for,  a while now,  noted how our government and elected officials seemed to approach the treatment of the citizenry much as a farmer viewed his livestock: as a commodity to be managed. This brings the health care debate into clearer focus, at least for me.

I agree.  Most citizens don't see the noose that's slowly being tightened around their necks by the healthcare/pharmaceutical/insurance industry and its interconnected web of governmental and regulatory influences and institutions controlling more and more of their existence, both by happenstance and by plan.  It is an expanding and solidifying system of influence, control, and wealth extraction that is becoming progressively more impersonal, disconnected from true health, all encompassing, and tyrannical.   

 

Al Fata's picture
Al Fata
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 26 2011
Posts: 1
The veteranarian

 Two or three months ago, a man called into the Mark Levin show claiming to be part of a group creating regulations for Obama care.  People over 70 were referred to a "units" and the consensus was that such units would only be entitled to "comfort care", not remedial care.  Now that ought to balance the books.

PS, More recently I was reviewing medicare information, and it was my impression that all patients regardless of age are viewed as and called units. Whew, that softened the shock.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Obamacare is just part of it...

Obamacare is just part of it.  It is just another piece of the crazy puzzle.  Just look at all the other stuff going on.  There is a lot of scary stuff.  I lifted this list from a smart guy's article but it is all true.  Just 20 years ago any one of these things would have been perceived as a dire emergency.  Now we have all kinds of crazy stuff going on and the majority of the people just act like it is all normal.  It is not normal and something really bad is going to come from it.  When you add the other 2 CM E's data it, it does not look good for the future of us.  I suppose I am becoming a doomsday guy.  I was not a doomsday guy when I first encountered the CM site.  FInding this site sent me on a 2 year part time investigation and I have become a doomsday guy.  Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

  • We’ve increased our national debt by $5.6 trillion in the last three and a half years. It took from 1789 until 2000, two hundred and eleven years, to accumulate the first $5.6 trillion of debt.
  • Our average annual deficit from 2000 through 2008 was $190 billion. Our average annual deficits since 2008 have been $1.3 trillion. Our deficits never exceeded 4% of GDP prior to 2008, but now they exceed 9%.
  • The national debt will reach $20 trillion by 2015 and if interest rates normalized to the same level they were in 2007 (5%), annual interest expense would be $1 trillion, or 45% of current tax revenue.
  • There are 242 million working age Americans and 100 million of them are not working. But don’t concern yourself. The Federal government reports that only 13 million of these people are actually unemployed. The other 87 million are just kicking back and living off their accumulated riches.
  • The economic recovery has been so great that the 7.5 million people added to the Food Stamp rolls since the recession officially ended in December 2009 isn’t really an indication of severe stress among the 99%. Only 46.5 million Americans (15% of the population) need food stamps to survive.
  • The unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security exceed $100 trillion and cannot possibly be honored, leaving future generations to fend for themselves.
  • Our leaders have fought two undeclared wars of choice since 2001 that have resulted in 6,400 unnecessary soldier deaths, 47,500 badly wounded, $1.3 trillion of borrowed treasure, with unfunded liabilities of at least $2 trillion more, and we are itching for more of the same with our coming war with Iran. A bankrupt empire still trying to police the world is the ultimate act of hubris.
  • After causing a worldwide financial collapse in 2008 with their extreme risk taking, tangibly fraudulent mortgage schemes, and reckless pillaging of their clients and the American people, Wall Street used their complete systematic capture of our political and economic system to shift $8 trillion of toxic debt from their books onto the backs of American taxpayers. They have since become even more flagrant in their disregard for human decency by using the hundreds of billions in free money funneled to them by Ben Bernanke to take even bigger risks and pay themselves grander bonuses. Total unregulated derivatives (real WMD) outstanding now exceed $700 trillion.
  • Since 2001 the Federal government has used fear to assume unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the citizens of this country. They can now use surveillance to monitor your phones calls, emails, and websites visited, without warrants. You can be imprisoned without charges for as long as the government decides you are a threat. TSA agents molest little old ladies and children trying to fly on airplanes. The President can take over the entire economy through presidential decree. Predator spy drones can eliminate suspected terrorists whenever a general gives the command. An order for 30,000 spy drones to be flying over U.S. cities should make you feel safe. The $2 billion NSA Utah Data Gathering Center (code name Stellar Wind) will be able to intercept and store every electronic signal on the planet by 2013. Sacrificing liberty for perceived safety and security isn’t working out too well for the American people.
Carl Veritas's picture
Carl Veritas
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 23 2008
Posts: 294
Healthcare In The United States

The foodstamp program helps the needy obtain a basic necessity: Food.     But our government isn't as heavily involved in food distribution as they are in healthcare.   So, whether it is the grocery or the food service industry,   consumer choice and competition for their business directly influence what gets stocked on shelves and what price to charge.   This basic decision making at the consumer level and the choices available is largely missing in our healthcare delivery system. 

  By comparison,    Swiss citizens buy insurance for themselves.  There are no employer-sponsored or government -run insurance programs.  They can choose  between plans from nearly  100 different private insurance companies.     The government subsidizes costs for the poor, and 99.5% of Swiss citizens have health insurance.   Costs?  Government spending on healthcare in Switzerland is 2.7% of GDP , compared to the U.S at 7.4% with comparable quality and wait times.                                                                                          

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/ 

Providing healthcare for the poor need not break the Treasury, apparently.

 

 

 

Saffron's picture
Saffron
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 29 2009
Posts: 250
Thank you Sen. McConnell

 

WASHINGTON — Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell charged Thursday that President Barack Obama had "crossed a dangerous line" when he commented on the Supreme Court's deliberations over the 2010 federal health care law.

"The independence of the Court must be defended. Regardless of how the justices decide this case, they’re answerable, above all, to the Constitution they swore to uphold," McConnell said in remarks to the Rotary Club of Lexington Ky.

This was in response to Obama's comment earlier this week, which appalled me when I read it:

"that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example," Obama said. "And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/05/2733373/sen-mcconnell-i-would-sugg...

Could be a good thing ... we've allowed so many covert attacks on the constitution ...maybe what we need is some more real stupid blatant comments like this to get people to wake up a little faster to what is happening.

~ s 



Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/05/2733373/sen-mcconnell-i-would-suggest.html#storylink=cpy
 


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/05/2733373/sen-mcconnell-i-would-
 
Thanksuggest.html#storylink=cpy
dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Saffron
Saffron wrote:

 

 

WASHINGTON — Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell charged Thursday that President Barack Obama had "crossed a dangerous line" when he commented on the Supreme Court's deliberations over the 2010 federal health care law.

"The independence of the Court must be defended. Regardless of how the justices decide this case, they’re answerable, above all, to the Constitution they swore to uphold," McConnell said in remarks to the Rotary Club of Lexington Ky.

This was in response to Obama's comment earlier this week, which appalled me when I read it:

"that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example," Obama said. "And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/05/2733373/sen-mcconnell-i-would-sugg...

Could be a good thing ... we've allowed so many covert attacks on the constitution ...maybe what we need is some more real stupid blatant comments like this to get people to wake up a little faster to what is happening.

~ s 

 



Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/05/2733373/sen-mcconnell-i-would-suggest.html#storylink=cpy

I think they are going to dump the mandate part and that is going to really upset the dems.  This was their way into getting around the constitution big time.  If they control your health care then they control you.  Cars with big engines create too much carbon which is bad for your health so we need to get rid of big engines to control health care costs.  You are 65 so you are too old for bypass surgery - we have people to help you die right.  We need to implant you with this chip so we can track your health.  It sounds crazy now but a lot of stuff that is going on right now for real sounded crazy 10 years ago.  5 years ago people would have laughed at you if you had told them the fed gov could just claim an American citizen on American soil was a terrorist and they could arrest you and hold you as long as they wanted to without a lawyer or a trial.  Just recently I saw where a politician, an elected oficial of America, said that people who wanted to enforce the constitution might be terrorists.  That is where we are heading if we don't do something about it.  About all we can do at this point is in the next election put as many dems as possible into the street.  I know that is not perfect but that is about all we can do.  If they are a dem then just vote them out just because of that.  Then we have to start pressuring the repubs to start repealing stuff - a lot of stuff.  The fed gov needs to be cut in half.  If we can get to that point we have a chance.

 

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Carl Veritas wrote: The
Carl Veritas wrote:

The foodstamp program helps the needy obtain a basic necessity: Food.     But our government isn't as heavily involved in food distribution as they are in healthcare.   So, whether it is the grocery or the food service industry,   consumer choice and competition for their business directly influence what gets stocked on shelves and what price to charge.   This basic decision making at the consumer level and the choices available is largely missing in our healthcare delivery system. 

  By comparison,    Swiss citizens buy insurance for themselves.  There are no employer-sponsored or government -run insurance programs.  They can choose  between plans from nearly  100 different private insurance companies.     The government subsidizes costs for the poor, and 99.5% of Swiss citizens have health insurance.   Costs?  Government spending on healthcare in Switzerland is 2.7% of GDP , compared to the U.S at 7.4% with comparable quality and wait times.                                                                                          

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/ 

Providing healthcare for the poor need not break the Treasury, apparently.

Obamacare is not just about health care.  It is about getting around the constitution and controlling you - the individual.  Dictators always claim their dictates are in the best interest of the people - not the individual.  Sacrifice for the people they say.  That is all BS.  We need to empower the individual - that is what made America the great nation it used to be.  We are being enslaved by our own government.  This is exactly what the founders feared the most.  It has to be stopped.  We can not allow greedy power hungry masterminds to enslave us.  We have to move toward empowering the individual.  Hard work, self reliance, honesty, and truth - these are the things that make a country great.  Not transfer payments and entitlement.  Having a massive class of dependency has never made any country great. 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments