The Beginning of the End for Obamacare

[JackC]

A federal judge has ruled that the individual mandate in the new health care law is unconstitutional.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/ ... eakingnews


This is the heart of the bill. The economics of Obamacare just do not work without the ability to force people to buy health insurance.

No doubt this is just the beginning of the legal fight and the Supreme Court will ultimately rule. But it seems unlikely to me, though I am not a constitutional lawyer, that the conservative majority on the court is going to rule in favor of extending the power of the federal government in the manner attempted by the individual mandate.

In any event, this heavy-handed, terribly botched, ill-conceived patchwork of a healhcare law should just be repealed and replaced with some bill that most of the people in the country can support.

[jbuck919]

In any event, this heavy-handed, terribly botched, ill-conceived patchwork of a healhcare law should just be repealed and replaced with some bill that most of the people in the country can support.

Right. It should have been reformed Medicare for all from the beginning.

[Teresa B]

In any event, this heavy-handed, terribly botched, ill-conceived patchwork of a healhcare law should just be repealed and replaced with some bill that most of the people in the country can support.

Right. It should have been reformed Medicare for all from the beginning.

Yes, it should. Any bets it'll be repealed in favor of that?

Teresa

[jbuck919]

In any event, this heavy-handed, terribly botched, ill-conceived patchwork of a healhcare law should just be repealed and replaced with some bill that most of the people in the country can support.

Right. It should have been reformed Medicare for all from the beginning.

Yes, it should. Any bets it'll be repealed in favor of that?

Teresa

The government is currently doing a fine job endangering my (and many others') future security without my helping it along by engaging in imprudent wagers.

[HoustonDavid]

The Republicans will simply not support anything based on a government managed
health care system. It is private insurance companies - for those not already on Medicare,
Medicaid, or the Veterans Administration - or nothing. Unfortunately, that leaves a lot
of people - something like 39 million at a minimum - out in the cold or in the emergency
room on the public dole.

[jbuck919]

The Republicans will simply not support anything based on a government managed
health care system. It is private insurance companies - for those not already on Medicare,
Medicaid, or the Veterans Administration - or nothing. Unfortunately, that leaves a lot
of people - something like 39 million at a minimum - out in the cold or in the emergency
room on the public dole.

It's bad news for most of the supposedly insured as well.

[Werner]

We'll see a lot more argument and a lot more discusssion about constitutional rights and privileges, and, yes, it will go up to the Supreme Ccourt.

I'm no lawyer, so I suppose this goes beyond my competence - but how can I be forced to carry automobile insurance, but an equivalent obligation to buy insurance for health care - preventing my medical costs from becoming a public burden is constitutionally barred? It seems to me that either the Cconstitution is at fault - which I seriously doubt, or there are several things wrong with its interpretation.

If we forget about stock phrases like "European Socialism" and the like and look at two examples, will someone manage to see a light?

Example A: Australia - a functioning and prosperous democracy which has had a functional public health care system for thirty years or more.

Example B: Germany has had a functiioning public health insurance setup since the days of Bismarck - I guess that would be sa track record.

Can we do as well? Not yet, it seems. Give Obama credit for a large move forward. I don't think the issue will die, and one day it will take shape nd work here as well as elsewhere. Unfortunately, ourtalented obstructionists may keep in fron working until my great-granchildren's time.

[living_stradivarius]

In any event, this heavy-handed, terribly botched, ill-conceived patchwork of a healhcare law should just be repealed and replaced with some bill that most of the people in the country can support.

Right. It should have been reformed Medicare for all from the beginning.

Yes, it should. Any bets it'll be repealed in favor of that?

Teresa

The government is currently doing a fine job endangering my (and many others') future security without my helping it along by engaging in imprudent wagers.

how Ralph of you to say so

[RebLem]

The Republicans will simply not support anything based on a government managed
health care system. It is private insurance companies - for those not already on Medicare,
Medicaid, or the Veterans Administration - or nothing. Unfortunately, that leaves a lot
of people - something like 39 million at a minimum - out in the cold or in the emergency
room on the public dole.

Or the preferred solution for many GOPers, just plain dead. After all, a dead person is just that much less strain on the Social Security system. But the reason the mandate will stay is because the insurance companies insist on it, and they own the Republicans. And JackC understands this. He prentends not to because he thinks he's the smartest one in the room and the rest of us are really stupid and he can put one over on us. Thjat's what makes me so angry about his posts. He has total and absolute contempt for the intelligence of everyone here and has no hesitancy about insulting every one of us with these outrageous posts, which take an appalling ignorance to believe. But he's an attorney and understands the principle of insurance. You can't let people buy insurance only when they need it; that's one reason rates are the highest in the world now. Its not difficult to understand, but the problem is Americans are, for the most part, not adults. A kindergartenish "But, wha, wha, I don't wanna!" tantrum carries the day.

[Cosima___J]

A very good point is made here in the Augusta Chronicle:

Judge rules for citizens, against frightening encroachment of Obamacare
Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff
Wednesday, Dec. 15, 2010

The federal health care law is, without doubt, the most frightening piece of legislation in our lifetimes.

Not only might it cripple the private-sector health care economy, leaving us with a plodding and maddening government-run system, it may also be the most unconstitutional intrusion on American freedoms in modern times.

In particular, the law's mandate that every individual in America obtain health insurance or be fined is a startling and ominous expansion of federal government power. In short, if the federal government can order you to buy health insurance, or any other product, what can't it do?

Thankfully, a federal judge Monday declared the so-called "individual mandate" unconstitutional. And other lawsuits await -- including one in Florida that involves 20 states.

The national media won't call it this, but the federal health care law -- nicknamed Obamacare -- has inspired a rebellion across the country involving nearly half the Union. It helped Republicans win a historic number of congressional and even state-level seats on Nov. 2. It gave flight to the massive Tea Party movement and renewed vigor to the burgeoning states' rights movement.

And now, it is being successfully exposed in court -- and Republicans, in the majority again next year in the House, will no doubt make dismantling the behemoth a priority (though without the Senate and White House, a true dismantling will have to wait until 2012).

Judge Henry E. Hudson's ruling Monday gives hope -- not just to Republicans in Congress, but also to the many angry and fearful Americans who did their best to express their desires at town hall after town hall but who were systematically ignored and even vilified by their Democratic members of Congress.

The unraveling of Obamacare may be a return to the America they thought they lived in.

Indeed, wrote Judge Hudson, "Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause power to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market."

The case also revolved around whether fines levied against the uninsured are a "tax" or a "penalty"; Congress can levy a tax, but not a penalty on activity that it can't regulate. The Obama administration disingenuously argued in court that it's a tax -- after both the White House and congressional Democrats said it wasn't. And, oh by the way, the law itself calls it a "penalty."

They're playing dishonest word games -- with your life and health in the balance. On Monday, they lost.

And thank the heavens. As the judge wrote, "The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by (the individual mandate) would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers."

Other judges have, and probably will, come to other conclusions -- meaning that the U.S. Supreme Court will have to render the final decision. But this is a promising start on the road back to our freedoms.

Again, if the federal government can use the Commerce Clause, or any other part of the Constitution, to force us to buy or sell anything, what can't it do?

The Obama administration's absurd argument is that even your decision not to buy insurance -- or, by extension, any product -- is an act of interstate commerce. By that definition, you need not even wake up in the morning to be engaging in commerce!

If this law stands, in our "best interests," we're sure, the government, by whim and fiat, is liable to impose similar mandates on us in the years to come. Where does it stop?

With any luck, it will stop here.

[Teresa B]

Cosima, I do not much like the health care plan myself, but I don't see how this article is anything but a bunch of nonsense. Obviously the Augusta Chronicle must be a subsidiary of Fox News.

Teresa

[Cosima___J]

Here is the pertinent part of the article and these points have been made in various other media outlets as well:

Indeed, wrote Judge Hudson, "Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause power to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market."

The case also revolved around whether fines levied against the uninsured are a "tax" or a "penalty"; Congress can levy a tax, but not a penalty on activity that it can't regulate. The Obama administration disingenuously argued in court that it's a tax -- after both the White House and congressional Democrats said it wasn't. And, oh by the way, the law itself calls it a "penalty."

[Teresa B]

We have to buy car insurance, as has been mentioned before. In any case, the mandate is something that has to be in there in order for things like no denials for pre-existing conditions by 2014. The insurance companies are going to be laughing all the way to the bank. But if the mandate is not there, this insurance reform simply will not be viable at all.

Teresa

[Cosima___J]

You are quite right that for Obamacare to have any hope of working, the individual mandates have to be in there. But being forced to buy liablility car insurance is a guarantee that drivers will pay for repairs if they have an accident. Not the same thing at all.

[rwetmore]

We have to buy car insurance,

All you have to buy is liability insurance in case you injure someone else in accident that's your fault. That's hardly analogous to making everyone buy health insurance for themselves.

[Teresa B]

You are quite right that for Obamacare to have any hope of working, the individual mandates have to be in there. But being forced to buy liablility car insurance is a guarantee that drivers will pay for repairs if they have an accident. Not the same thing at all.

It's not the same thing as far as case-by-case liability, but indirectly it's just as harmful because ultimately, those of us who do buy insurance suffer at the hands of the part of the population that opts out.

Teresa

[jbuck919]

You are quite right that for Obamacare to have any hope of working, the individual mandates have to be in there.

There is some (wishful?) thinking to the contrary:

# The New York Times Reprints

December 14, 2010
Ruling Has Some Mulling the Necessity of Mandating Insurance
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — Though they have battled for more than a year, President Obama and the health insurance industry agree that the requirement for most Americans to obtain insurance, struck down by a federal judge, is absolutely essential to the success of the new health care law.

Without it, they say, the whole package collapses, dashing hopes for universal coverage and cost control. Ripping the mandate from the law would have “devastating consequences,” the White House said Tuesday.

But not everyone agrees. In the wake of the decision Monday, which held that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, some lawmakers and some consumer advocates are investigating possible alternatives.

“I am not a big fan of the individual mandate,” said Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, who voted reluctantly for the health legislation.

Mr. Nelson said he had asked the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, to identify possible alternatives and to analyze how effective they would be in extending coverage to the uninsured.

Jamie Court, the president of Consumer Watchdog, a liberal advocacy group, said, “The health insurance purchase mandate is not necessary for health care reform to work.” Indeed, Mr. Court said, it was “a sop to health insurance companies,” which guarantees they will have millions of new customers, without a firm cap on how much they can charge.

One alternative to the individual mandate would create financial incentives for people to buy insurance. For example, health policy experts said, insurers could offer discounts to people who sign up early, and they could increase premiums for people who delay enrollment. Medicare imposes such late-enrollment penalties on some people who delay signing up for Part B, which covers doctors’ services, and Part D, which covers prescription drugs.

Another approach would be for insurers to limit enrollment to one or two months a year, so that consumers could not sign up on the spur of the moment, when they need care.

Mr. Obama champions what he describes as progressive features of the law: subsidies to help low- and moderate-income people buy insurance; a requirement for insurers to offer coverage to anyone who applies; a ban on insurers’ charging higher premiums to people who are or have been sick.

Without an individual coverage requirement, Mr. Obama and insurers say, consumers could go without insurance until they needed care. Fewer healthy people would buy insurance, according to this logic, and those buying it would be sicker than average, so premiums would be higher — for employers, for employees and for consumers who buy insurance on their own.

Congress set forth that argument in detailed findings included in the new law. The Justice Department has repeatedly cited those findings in defending the law in court. The law “could not function effectively without the minimum coverage provision,” the department said in the case decided Monday by Judge Henry E. Hudson of the Federal District Court in Richmond, Va.

The Justice Department said Tuesday that it would appeal that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond.

“The department believes this case should follow the ordinary course of allowing the courts of appeals to hear it first so the issues and arguments can be fully developed before the Supreme Court decides whether to consider it,” said Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman. Ms. Schmaler pointed out that the provision struck down by Judge Hudson does not take effect until 2014, so appellate courts will have “more than sufficient time” to consider the case.

Brian J. Gottstein, a spokesman for Virginia’s attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, who filed the lawsuit, said no decision had been made about whether to petition the Supreme Court to hear the case.

In the past, some prominent Republicans have supported an individual mandate, as a way to foster individual responsibility and as an alternative to requirements for employers to provide coverage. In 1993, the main Senate Republican alternative to President Bill Clinton’s health plan included an individual mandate, with stiffer financial penalties than those in the law adopted this year.

An individual mandate was also at the heart of the health plan adopted in 2006 by Massachusetts, with support from Mitt Romney, who was then governor. “What we did is the ultimate conservative plan,” Mr. Romney said earlier this year.

In a letter to Congressional leaders last year, another Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, said, “An enforceable and effective individual mandate, combined with guaranteed issuance of insurance, is the best way to accomplish” coverage for all.

But the Republican view on Capitol Hill, fortified by the Tea Party movement, is much different. Many Republicans now denounce the individual mandate as a federal infringement on individual freedom. It will, they say, require many to buy insurance more comprehensive and more costly than what they now have.

At the same time, in their campaign manifesto this year, House Republicans said, “Health care should be accessible for all, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses.” How they would achieve that goal, without an individual mandate, is not entirely clear.

In the manifesto, “A Pledge to America,” House Republicans said they would expand high-risk pools, for people who cannot obtain coverage because of pre-existing conditions. They would also encourage reinsurance programs, under which states pay a large share of claims exceeding some threshold.

When similar proposals were offered by House Republicans last year, the Congressional Budget Office said they could reduce premiums, but would cover only three million people who were uninsured — about one-tenth of the number expected to gain coverage under President Obama’s health care overhaul.

Democrats say those proposals are not nearly enough. Theda R. Skocpol, a professor of government and sociology at Harvard and a student of health care politics, said, “If courts invalidate the individual mandate, Democrats in Congress and the president should have some alternatives ready to go.”

Kevin Sack contributed reporting from Atlanta.

[Cosima___J]

From a Walter E Williams column:

"Obama and his congressional and union allies have lectured us that socialized medicine is the cure for the nation's ills, but I have a question. If socialized medicine, Obamacare, is so great for the nation, why permit anyone to be exempted from it? It turns out that as of the end of November, Obama's Health and Human Services secretary has issued over 200 waivers to major labor unions such as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union and Transport Workers Union of America and major companies such as McDonald's and Darden Restaurants, which operates Red Lobster and Olive Garden. Keep in mind that the power to grant waivers is also the power not to grant waivers. Such power can be used to reward administration friends and punish administration critics by saddling them with millions of dollars of health care costs."

As I've said before: Walter Williams for President!

[rwetmore]

From a Walter E Williams column:

"Obama and his congressional and union allies have lectured us that socialized medicine is the cure for the nation's ills, but I have a question. If socialized medicine, Obamacare, is so great for the nation, why permit anyone to be exempted from it? It turns out that as of the end of November, Obama's Health and Human Services secretary has issued over 200 waivers to major labor unions such as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union and Transport Workers Union of America and major companies such as McDonald's and Darden Restaurants, which operates Red Lobster and Olive Garden. Keep in mind that the power to grant waivers is also the power not to grant waivers. Such power can be used to reward administration friends and punish administration critics by saddling them with millions of dollars of health care costs."

As I've said before: Walter Williams for President!

As usual, Williams is right on.

[Teresa B]

The thing is, Williams starts with the equating of "Obamacare" with "Socialized Medicine". Whatever is being labeled "Obamacare" is not an entity like Medicare or any other "socialized" medical service. Williams (who ended his column with a scary quote from Hitler, just for effect) is using the straw man approach, just as everyone who hysterically shrieks "socialized medicine, government intrusion" is doing. This health care plan is so far from "socialized medicine" it would be laughable, if it weren't so sad that this is the message people are taking home. Just more scare tactics.

Just for the record, I don't much like the health care overhaul, as I would far prefer Medicare for all. But it's too bad that opponents have to lie and mislead the public in order to convince them that another policy of the Obama administration amounts to "Socialism" (read: "Communism", Nazism", Stalinism", you name the baddie).

To quote Williams, "Adolf Hitler had it right when he said, 'How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.'" Williams is of course alluding to the current presidential administration as the "government(s)" in the quote, but let's not forget Congress and the shill branches of the media that put out the messages.

Teresa

[Agnes Selby]

Health care is a necessity. It is a pity that political parties
use it as a football. In Australia the two opposing parties,
Liberal and Labor are no less destructive of each other in
Parliament as are your Liberals and Republicans but on the
issue of health they burried the hatchet and came to an
agreement which has worked well for more than 30 years.

It is sad to think that the most powerful nation in the world
cannot agree on what is best for the nation's healthcare.
I have friends in America who deserve better. I hope the
situation is resolved soon.

[Werner]

Thank you, Agnes, for that necessary statement. It should certainly outweigh the patent propaganda statements we keep being fed in opposition. The opposition, it has been pointed out, is much like that which met Social Security and Medicare whene they went through the legislative mill. Both encountered loud oppositiion - is anyone surprised that that slick expression "socialized medicine" figured prominently as Medicare was discussed?

Both went in and took generations to prove their worth. Same process at work here.

And for those of you who don't know Agnes, she speaks from experience: A distinguished author, she is also a physician's wife who has seen the Australian system develop and work for more than thirty years, as you've just read. THAT's talking with authority.

[rwetmore]

Thank you, Agnes, for that necessary statement. It should certainly outweigh the patent propaganda statements we keep being fed in opposition. The opposition, it has been pointed out, is much like that which met Social Security and Medicare whene they went through the legislative mill. Both encountered loud oppositiion - is anyone surprised that that slick expression "socialized medicine" figured prominently as Medicare was discussed?

Both went in and took generations to prove their worth.

And both will inevitably collapse under their own weight in the next generation, but most of those who benefited in previous generations will be gone. Socialism is great for those getting freebies, but eventually you run out of other people's money - or the next generation's money.

[rwetmore]

The thing is, Williams starts with the equating of "Obamacare" with "Socialized Medicine". Whatever is being labeled "Obamacare" is not an entity like Medicare or any other "socialized" medical service. Williams (who ended his column with a scary quote from Hitler, just for effect) is using the straw man approach, just as everyone who hysterically shrieks "socialized medicine, government intrusion" is doing. This health care plan is so far from "socialized medicine" it would be laughable, if it weren't so sad that this is the message people are taking home. Just more scare tactics.

Just for the record, I don't much like the health care overhaul, as I would far prefer Medicare for all. But it's too bad that opponents have to lie and mislead the public in order to convince them that another policy of the Obama administration amounts to "Socialism" (read: "Communism", Nazism", Stalinism", you name the baddie).

To quote Williams, "Adolf Hitler had it right when he said, 'How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.'" Williams is of course alluding to the current presidential administration as the "government(s)" in the quote, but let's not forget Congress and the shill branches of the media that put out the messages.

Teresa

Very clever - you brushed over the most pertinent points of Williams' column. You've become awfully good at doing that.

[JackC]

The Republicans will simply not support anything based on a government managed
health care system. It is private insurance companies - for those not already on Medicare,
Medicaid, or the Veterans Administration - or nothing. Unfortunately, that leaves a lot
of people - something like 39 million at a minimum - out in the cold or in the emergency
room on the public dole.

Or the preferred solution for many GOPers, just plain dead. After all, a dead person is just that much less strain on the Social Security system. But the reason the mandate will stay is because the insurance companies insist on it, and they own the Republicans. And JackC understands this. He prentends not to because he thinks he's the smartest one in the room and the rest of us are really stupid and he can put one over on us. Thjat's what makes me so angry about his posts. He has total and absolute contempt for the intelligence of everyone here and has no hesitancy about insulting every one of us with these outrageous posts, which take an appalling ignorance to believe. But he's an attorney and understands the principle of insurance. You can't let people buy insurance only when they need it; that's one reason rates are the highest in the world now. Its not difficult to understand, but the problem is Americans are, for the most part, not adults. A kindergartenish "But, wha, wha, I don't wanna!" tantrum carries the day.

Gosh -- I can't tell you how sorry that I am that my posts make you so angry!!!!

-- and I didn't realize that I am to refrain from posting what I think about the healhtcare bill because "everyone one of us" finds it personally insulting.

Unlike you, I intended to insult no one here with my post. As to you, it's medication time. .

[JackC]

I'm no lawyer, so I suppose this goes beyond my competence - but how can I be forced to carry automobile insurance, but an equivalent obligation to buy insurance for health care - preventing my medical costs from becoming a public burden is constitutionally barred? It seems to me that either the Cconstitution is at fault - which I seriously doubt, or there are several things wrong with its interpretation.

The difference usually pointed out is that you do not have to buy auto insurance if you don't , want to drive. (Also these are state laws as opposed to the federal law at issue --- which raises a different constitutional issue)

I don't know how it will be resolved, but at its heart the issue is about the power of the federal government. The question courts are asking themselves is if the federal government can force you to buy health insurance simply because you are alive (and not engaged in interstate commerce in any clear sense) because the federal government thinks its a good thing, what CAN'T the government force you to do?? It is very hard to see any limit to its power --- which is what the constituition is about-- the limits of goverment power.

I would point out that, leaving aside whether it is a good or bad thing, offering a "public option " or increasing availability of medicare would not raise any issue like this because you are not forcing anyone to do anything.

[HoustonDavid]

Jack, have you not read my post? It's been repeated several times, so I will wiill quote
it yet again, but change the word "Republicans" to the more accurate word "conservatives".

The "conservatives" will simply not support anything based on a government managed
health care system. It is private insurance companies - for those not already on Medicare,
Medicaid, or the Veterans Administration - or nothing. Unfortunately, that leaves a lot
of people - something like 39 million at a minimum - out in the cold or in the emergency
room on the public dole.

offering a "public option " or increasing availability of medicare would not raise any issue like this because you are not forcing anyone to do anything

Those two options, which a conservative like you seems to support, are simply a pipe dream
in present day Washington. We can only "improve" the legislation that was passed so it
better suits the country as a whole and everyone gets a whack at those improvements to
suit their personal health care political agenda.

[living_stradivarius]

The difference usually pointed out is that you do not have to buy auto insurance if you don't , want to drive.

Aye, there's the rub: You do not have to buy health insurance if you don't want to live

[Teresa B]

The thing is, Williams starts with the equating of "Obamacare" with "Socialized Medicine". Whatever is being labeled "Obamacare" is not an entity like Medicare or any other "socialized" medical service. Williams (who ended his column with a scary quote from Hitler, just for effect) is using the straw man approach, just as everyone who hysterically shrieks "socialized medicine, government intrusion" is doing. This health care plan is so far from "socialized medicine" it would be laughable, if it weren't so sad that this is the message people are taking home. Just more scare tactics.

Just for the record, I don't much like the health care overhaul, as I would far prefer Medicare for all. But it's too bad that opponents have to lie and mislead the public in order to convince them that another policy of the Obama administration amounts to "Socialism" (read: "Communism", Nazism", Stalinism", you name the baddie).

To quote Williams, "Adolf Hitler had it right when he said, 'How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.'" Williams is of course alluding to the current presidential administration as the "government(s)" in the quote, but let's not forget Congress and the shill branches of the media that put out the messages.

Teresa

Very clever - you brushed over the most pertinent points of Williams' column. You've become awfully good at doing that.

...And you've become very good at that claim. The key is, you and I disagree about Williams' most pertinent point. My point is, his premise--that "Obamacare" = "socialized medicine" is entirely wrong, so the rest of his arguments cannot be taken as correct either.

Teresa

[HoustonDavid]

It seems to me - Randall, Cosi & Walter Williams - that you are forgetting that three
major health care providers - Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration -
are running very successfully under the auspices of the federal government. What
isn't running very smoothly is the good, the bad, and the ugly health care provided
by a polyglot of health care insurance companies, many of whom exist only for the
profits they can generate by wistfully doling out mediocre levels of approved care.

[Cosima___J]

No doubt, Walter Williams should not have used the term "socialized medicine". But the point he was making is quite valid: various unions who favored Obamacare have promptly filed for and been granted exemptions from it. Go figure.

And I would also say to my friend David that I have not received "mediocre" health care. Quite to the contrary. When I had to have major surgery last year, my health care was excellent.

[Agnes Selby]

Thank you, Agnes, for that necessary statement. It should certainly outweigh the patent propaganda statements we keep being fed in opposition. The opposition, it has been pointed out, is much like that which met Social Security and Medicare whene they went through the legislative mill. Both encountered loud oppositiion - is anyone surprised that that slick expression "socialized medicine" figured prominently as Medicare was discussed?

Both went in and took generations to prove their worth.

And both will inevitably collapse under their own weight in the next generation, but most of those who benefited in previous generations will be gone. Socialism is great for those getting freebies, but eventually you run out of other people's money - or the next generation's money.

Speaking of "collapse", then the Australian Healthcare System, now no longer young
but beginning its middle age years, should have collapsed a long time ago.
Instead, Australia's economy is thriving as I have mentioned here a few times before.

All "systems" have faults. Communism, Socialism, Capitalism - all have their faults.
They also have some good points worthy of consideration.
If nations would learn from each other and adopt the good ideas from an opposing political
system, they would only benefit. Look at China today! Would you say that China has
not learned from Capitalism? And how well they have learned to utilise what
they have learned!!!

[RebLem]

Henry Hudson, Judge In Health Care Lawsuit, Has Financial Ties To Attorney General Bringing The Case

by Sam Stein, Huffington Post
First Posted: 07-30-10 01:16 PM | Updated: 09-29-10 05:12 AM | stein@huffingtonpost.com

The federal judge set to issue one of the first decisions on the Obama administration's health care law has financial ties to both the attorney general who is challenging the law and to a powerhouse conservative law firm whose clients include prominent Republican officials and critics of reform.

This week, District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson is likely to render a procedural verdict on the Virginia Attorney General's lawsuit which contends that the federal health care overhaul is unconstitutional. The Bush appointee has been hearing oral arguments in his Richmond courtroom dating back to March. His verdict could serve as an important template for more than a dozen other states following Virginia's lead.

But with power comes scrutiny. And as judgment day approaches, a Democratic source sends over judicial disclosure forms Hudson filed that could raise questions about his impartiality. From 2003 through 2008, Hudson has been receiving "dividends" from Campaign Solutions Inc., among other investments. In 2008, he reported income of between $5,000 and $15,000 from the firm. (Data from 2009 was not available at the Judicial Watch database.)

A powerhouse Republican online communications firm, Campaign Solutions, has done work for a host of prominent Republican clients and health care reform critics, including the RNC and NRCC (both of which have called, to varying degrees, for health care reform's repeal). The president of the firm, Becki Donatelli, is the wife of longtime GOP hand Frank Donatelli, and is an adviser to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, among others.

Another firm client is Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia and the man who is bringing the lawsuit in front of Hudson's court. In 2010, records show, Cuccinelli spent nearly $9,000 for Campaign Solutions services.

Campaign Solutions did not immediately return a request for information on the judge's relationship with the company.

The nexus between the chief lawyer and the judge spurs questions about judicial objectivity. At the very least, it shows how tightly connected the legal and political worlds can be and how difficult it is to remove the partisan threads from the heath care related lawsuits.

UPDATE: Campaign Solutions, Inc. sent over the following statement detailing Hudson's investment in the firm.

Judge Hudson has owned stock in Campaign Solutions going back 13 years to the founding of the company or well before he became a federal judge. Since joining the federal bench, he has fully disclosed his stock ownership in the company. He is a passive investor only, has no knowledge of the day to day operations of the firm, and has never discussed any aspect of the business with any official of the company.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/3 ... 65240.html

[jbuck919]

Henry Hudson, Judge In Health Care Lawsuit, Has Financial Ties To Attorney General Bringing The Case

The Last Voyage of Henry Hudson, by John Colier

Marvelously allegorical, no?

[rwetmore]

It seems to me - Randall, Cosi & Walter Williams - that you are forgetting that three
major health care providers - Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration -
are running very successfully under the auspices of the federal government. What
isn't running very smoothly is the good, the bad, and the ugly health care provided
by a polyglot of health care insurance companies, many of whom exist only for the
profits they can generate by wistfully doling out mediocre levels of approved care.

David,

What do you think the government is going to do if it completely takes over the healthcare system? They are going to turn around and do pretty much the exact same thing you're accusing the insurance companies of doing. Essentially, you are going to be exchanging in several tyrants for one big tyrant. Let me ask you this: What are you going to do when the government denies you the care you think you need and deserve?

What do you think is going to happen as the budgets continue to go further and further into the red? Do you think they just might be forced to start significantly rationing care to prevent all out financial collapse? Medicare is running up massive debt and is completely unsustainable. So is social security.

[HoustonDavid]

Cosi, if you'll read my post more carefully:

What isn't running very smoothly is the good, the bad, and the ugly health care provided by a polyglot of health care insurance companies

Randall, since I depend on both the Social Security, Medicare, and Veterans Adminstration
for my well being, I am very well aware of their upsides and downsides. Since, as I've pointed
out previously, there is no chance whatsoever that the government will take over the entire
health care industry, I am not the least concerned, at least about that. I am concerned that
Social Security will lapse without significant interjection - maybe rescue - by the feds (since
they borrowed so much from it) , but I will be very long gone by that time, as will my children,
perhaps even my grandchildren.

We can agree on one thing: If the government does not act responsibly to reinvigorate the
Social Security trust fund, and vigorously prosecute Medicare fraud and abuse, they will both
eventually run out of money, but I see no reason why those things cannot happen in a
reasonable time frame, which is to say, long before the money runs out. I have no sense
whatsoever that the government will inject "death panels" into the health care equation, whether
or not they are in charge. Rationing health care, even SS retirement income, is as unlikely as most
of your conspiracy theories.

It makes much more sense that they will do what is necessary to keep them both "healthy" instead
of substituting them for their pet projects and pet lobbyist's projects to reduce the cost of government.
They will certainly feel the wrath of the tsunami of retirees needing both retirement income and health
care if they don't, and even the most pedagogical politician can't ignore that come election time.

[rwetmore]

The fiscal fantasy world that the average liberal lives in never ceases to amaze me.

Randall, since I depend on both the Social Security, Medicare, and Veterans Adminstration
for my well being, I am very well aware of their upsides and downsides. Since, as I've pointed
out previously, there is no chance whatsoever that the government will take over the entire
health care industry, I am not the least concerned, at least about that. I am concerned that
Social Security will lapse without significant interjection - maybe rescue - by the feds (since
they borrowed so much from it) , but I will be very long gone by that time, as will my children,
perhaps even my grandchildren.

We can agree on one thing: If the government does not act responsibly to reinvigorate the
Social Security trust fund, and vigorously prosecute Medicare fraud and abuse, they will both
eventually run out of money, but I see no reason why those things cannot happen in a
reasonable time frame, which is to say, long before the money runs out. I have no sense
whatsoever that the government will inject "death panels" into the health care equation, whether
or not they are in charge. Rationing health care, even SS retirement income, is as unlikely as most
of your conspiracy theories.

It makes much more sense that they will do what is necessary to keep them both "healthy" instead
of substituting them for their pet projects and pet lobbyist's projects to reduce the cost of government.
They will certainly feel the wrath of the tsunami of retirees needing both retirement income and health
care if they don't, and even the most pedagogical politician can't ignore that come election time.

David,

I can't believe you're actually this naive. With what money? What generally tends to inevitably happen with an ever increasing unfunded liability?

[HoustonDavid]

Randall, read Cosi's post in the "BHO" thread; it will provide a new source of
revenue for the Social Security trust fund, one that has been "raided" by
Congress for nearly 80 years, and will certainly reinvigorate the SS for many
more generations. And that is only one small example of what can and must
be done. There is nothing wrong with a little creativity instead of pessimism.
People have been predicting the downfall of the government due to entitlements
since shortly after 1789. My naivete must certainly be matched by your conspiracies
as the source for the end of the world as we know it.

[rwetmore]

You keep referring to these "conspiracy" theories of mine. What theories, specifically?

I don't have any conspiracy theories that I'm aware of.

[lennygoran]

>I don't have any conspiracy theories that I'm aware of.<

It's been a while but didn't you say that Obama wants to destroy America so he can take over--or something like that? Regards, Len

[rwetmore]

It's been a while but didn't you say that Obama wants to destroy America so he can take over--or something like that? Regards, Len

Not that I recall, no. I did say that the economy is major problem for him/them.

I don't think Obama wants to "destroy" America - he wants to destroy the the many facets of the way the country was founded and rebuild it into something quite different.

[lennygoran]

>Not that I recall, no. I did say that the economy is major problem for him/them. <

Well how about things like these two messages--I think there are probably more but I'm kind of busy right now:

1.This is good thread to bring up something that needs to be said. This president and many of the people in his administration are not adults, they are children in adult bodies - spoiled, self centered children at that. I'm totally serious. The general mentality and degree of maturity we've seen is on the level of a bunch of kids getting to together to get even with someone they don't like on a school yard playground. Now, I'm sure there are still a few adults left in the democrat party (as demonstrated by this column), but this president and many of the people around him are out to destroy and get even with people they don't like, which happens to be the majority of the people in this country - democrat or republican, conservative or liberal.

The self-centered mentality is best demonstrated by all the saying the opposite of what you're doing tactic that he's been using since he was inaugurated. People don't realize this shows utter contempt for the entire concept of a free society. It's essentially equivalent to saying "F*ck all of you - this is what I want and I don't care what it takes to get it...I'm up here lying right to your face and there's nothing you can do about it."

2. Getting back to the issue here. Trying to understand why intentionally crippling or damaging the economy serves Obama's agenda (especially in the long run), you first have to understand why such a generally robust and prosperous economy (like the one we've had over the past 25 years) is such a huge problem for the the leftist agenda in general. Make no mistake about it, this highly successful economy we have is major, MAJOR problem for them. The reason is because a more prosperous economy means a higher percentage of the population can survive and thrive without the need of much, if any, government assistance or involvement. In other words, because the vast majority of the people are generally better off economically and financially in a low tax/highly economically prosperous society, they are far more likely to resist and vote against bigger and bigger government in much greater numbers; thus, making the advancement of a bigger and more controlling government (the agenda of the left) - the policies of which will always fail economically, a lot more difficult. So in the long run especially, the economy needs to be systematically destroyed or significantly weakened so fewer and fewer of the population can make it on their own without the need or desire for government assistance or dependence for their livelihood. A weaker economy greatly aids the process of creating more and more dependent people. It also serves to break the spirit of the people to the point where they will more or less just give up resistance and accept bigger and bigger government control.

You have to understand that these people are not innocent idiots. They know their policies will fail and are in large part designed to fail economically, so they're trying to manage the right speed of the economic decline that will stick long term. If they try to destroy too much too quickly, it could and would likely be reversed by voter backlash. Obviously they want to avoid this if possible. If they move too slow and don't do enough damage, the little bit can be reversed without much difficulty. What I think Obama would like see happen is for the economy to just start recovering a little before the election later this year and again in 2012, but still be a significant net decline over his presidency. He can probably just blame it on Bush and a lot of people, especially his base, will buy it. One thing for certain is that if there is any recovery of any kind, Obama will take credit for it, and if there is not any significant recovery, it won't be his fault. This is as certain as the laws of physics. If Obama gets a second term, you can forget it - he'll then do as much damage as he can get away with because he won't be accountable to the electorate. He'll just use his veto power to stop any legislation that would serve to improve the economy or undo any damage - in effect, he will just close up shop and watch America continue to decline until his term is up. An absolute guaranteed disaster if that happens - you can kiss any chance of ever restoring the kind of freedom and prosperity we've had over the last 25 years if Obama gets a second term.

Make sense? Your answer should be "no, it doesn't". This is essentially just one letter in the Wheel of Fortune phrase so to speak that is the leftist agenda - without more "letters" the whole of it should still be largely unclear or unknown."

Regards, Len

[rwetmore]

What is conspiratorial about any of that?

[lennygoran]

>What is conspiratorial about any of that?<

I was trying to find examples where you indicated that you felt Obama meant to destroy America on purpose and I thought I just did--wouldn't that be conspiritorial on his part. I believe there are other examples where you indicated that but don't have time to do any more searching just now. Regards, Len

[rwetmore]

>What is conspiratorial about any of that?<

I was trying to find examples where you indicated that you felt Obama meant to destroy America on purpose and I thought I just did--wouldn't that be conspiritorial on his part. I believe there are other examples where you indicated that but don't have time to do any more searching just now. Regards, Len

I think you misunderstood my comments. If or when I said "destroy" - I meant from his perspective destroy things he thinks are bad or that he doesn't like, which happens to be an awful lot. Of course, he thinks he's doing good, but that's the way it always is. Does this clarify things a bit?

Forgive me, but many of these things are as glaringly obvious as night and day to those of us conservatives who have observed for years/decades the many evidence trails and behavioral patters in support of them. Sometimes I forget that not everyone has been exposed, and that so many are still "unwashed".

[lennygoran]

>Does this clarify things a bit?<

Well maybe slightly but what of these comments:

1.Getting back to the issue here. Trying to understand why intentionally crippling or damaging the economy serves Obama's agenda (especially in the long run), you first have to understand why such a generally robust and prosperous economy (like the one we've had over the past 25 years) is such a huge problem for the the leftist agenda in general. Make no mistake about it, this highly successful economy we have is major, MAJOR problem for them.

2. Of course Obama is not a Nazi - you're missing the point, which is that the Nazi regime was an extreme leftist manifestation. It's routed in the whole collectivism, take over and control mentality and element of the human mind that has existed since man walked the earth. People don't understand this - nature made Hilter to be Hilter. He had an innate internal clock driving him to do what he did. This is why this has happened over and over again in one form or another throughout history (communism, Marxism, dictatorships, etc.). That's all history is in a nutshell. It's a left over remnant of evolution - I believe, when people used to live in small groups. It provided some survival benefit. Obama is some version of this phenomena, yet he is not consciously aware of it - he's just doing what his innate internal clock is driving him to do. He's a total dictator personality type. I've never seen anything more obvious. He doesn't want to govern - he wants to rule. If in a different environment - one not constrained by the limits of the power of his office, he would be a dictator, though not a Hilter.

Regards, Len

[rwetmore]

>Does this clarify things a bit?<

Well maybe slightly but what of these comments:

1.Getting back to the issue here. Trying to understand why intentionally crippling or damaging the economy serves Obama's agenda (especially in the long run), you first have to understand why such a generally robust and prosperous economy (like the one we've had over the past 25 years) is such a huge problem for the the leftist agenda in general. Make no mistake about it, this highly successful economy we have is major, MAJOR problem for them.

2. Of course Obama is not a Nazi - you're missing the point, which is that the Nazi regime was an extreme leftist manifestation. It's routed in the whole collectivism, take over and control mentality and element of the human mind that has existed since man walked the earth. People don't understand this - nature made Hilter to be Hilter. He had an innate internal clock driving him to do what he did. This is why this has happened over and over again in one form or another throughout history (communism, Marxism, dictatorships, etc.). That's all history is in a nutshell. It's a left over remnant of evolution - I believe, when people used to live in small groups. It provided some survival benefit. Obama is some version of this phenomena, yet he is not consciously aware of it - he's just doing what his innate internal clock is driving him to do. He's a total dictator personality type. I've never seen anything more obvious. He doesn't want to govern - he wants to rule. If in a different environment - one not constrained by the limits of the power of his office, he would be a dictator, though not a Hilter.

Regards, Len

What of them? I'm not sure what you want to know.

[lennygoran]

> I'm not sure what you want to know.<

What I'd like to know is if you really believe what you wrote in this message--if yopu won't go back on that statement what proof do you have?

"people don't understand this - nature made Hilter to be Hilter. He had an innate internal clock driving him to do what he did. This is why this has happened over and over again in one form or another throughout history (communism, Marxism, dictatorships, etc.). That's all history is in a nutshell. It's a left over remnant of evolution - I believe, when people used to live in small groups. It provided some survival benefit. Obama is some version of this phenomena, yet he is not consciously aware of it - he's just doing what his innate internal clock is driving him to do. He's a total dictator personality type. I've never seen anything more obvious. He doesn't want to govern - he wants to rule."

Regards, Len

[rwetmore]

> I'm not sure what you want to know.<

What I'd like to know is if you really believe what you wrote in this message--if yopu won't go back on that statement what proof do you have?

"people don't understand this - nature made Hilter to be Hilter. He had an innate internal clock driving him to do what he did. This is why this has happened over and over again in one form or another throughout history (communism, Marxism, dictatorships, etc.). That's all history is in a nutshell. It's a left over remnant of evolution - I believe, when people used to live in small groups. It provided some survival benefit. Obama is some version of this phenomena, yet he is not consciously aware of it - he's just doing what his innate internal clock is driving him to do. He's a total dictator personality type. I've never seen anything more obvious. He doesn't want to govern - he wants to rule."

Regards, Len

Yes - zero doubt. Absolute empirical proof? No. These things can be deduced, but the evidence trails and behavior patterns (historical and more current) that support them are numerous and elaborate.

[HoustonDavid]

To use Randall's own words:

This climate change/global warming thing is essentially a new religion, and it's being used by the "elite power seeking class" as a device to solidify their power base around - much like the Christian church (as well as other religions) were used throughout history as a means of controlling the masses

Also, you and others are awfully naive if you think what Obama is doing is primarily geared toward helping the poor or unfortunate. It is not about the poor or the needy - it's about entrapping everyone in all these entitlements so socialist/marxist leftists like Obama can shift the power away from the people, collapse the system financially, and take the country for themselves.

The part of human nature at work here is the desire to take over and control people. ……It is also inevitable that this part of human nature would manifest itself into a desire to control the world. Well, these take over and control types have amassed themselves at the UN in combination with the European Union along with our current President - their goal is to form a global government and ration wealth and resources around the world.

There is a way to take the power away from the people and shift it toward them - that is to entrap as many people as they can in as many entitlements as possible. Without entitlements, they have little power over the people. This is what's going on with healthcare and immigration. They are trying to import voters for themselves at the expense of the citizenry to get them on the entitlement dole. In effect, they are trying to outnumber all the productive, self sufficient people and create as many dependent people as possible while they ascend and we all go down the tubes.

I think he [Obama] 's an American that doesn't like this country as it was founded and wants to change it - move it far left. AGW is going to give him and others of his ilk around world that are sympathetic to the cause a huge amount of the power and control over the average citizen that they need to implement their agenda.

Limbaugh was hoping that Obama failed to implement his agenda because it was designed to make the economy worse - to leave it in shambles, spend it into the ground, etc. Like most liberals, John F is duped - he actually thinks Obama's objective was the fix the economy and so forth. He actually believes what Obama says, doesn't think he's saying the opposite of what he's doing, etc., etc. Limbaugh knew from the start that Obama's agenda was to scam the public and bitch slap the nation, which is why he wanted him to fail.

How else could something like this be happening unless people didn't know or realize it was happening?

What I'd like to know is if you really believe what you wrote

Yes - zero doubt.