We Must Ignite This Couch Message Boards

« 1 2 (3) 4 5 6 ... 97 »

 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Webmaster
Joined:
2/11/2012 10:32 pm
From Seattle
Posts: 6752
Quote:

Jude wrote:

I think that's probably going to be the key issue. It's certainly the focus much of the line of questioning in oral argument the other day. I think if you asked the justices about the bill as a whole, 4 would say keep the whole thing, 3 would say scrap the whole thing, and Kennedy and Roberts (who sounded surprisingly more supportive of the law than many expected) are torn on the mandate portion and whether it's possible/necessary to scrap only that portion of the law.

I personally don't understand the vitriol for 90% of the law from the right. Much of the plan closely mirrors Republican ideas from as recently as the 90's (or in Mitt Romney's case, the 2000's.)

I mean, can anyone really muster an argument for why an insurance company should be allowed to prevent a kid with asthma to be able to get health insurance because it's a pre-existing condition? They used to do it left and right. They can't anymore because of "Obamacare." Why is that a bad thing?


Yeah, the mandate is a conservative idea created by the Heritage foundation and supported by the Republicans. Until Obama embraced it. Then the idea morphed into the antichrist on the right.

I honestly don't know if its constitutional or not. When I hear arguments saying it absolutely is I'm convinced. Until I hear arguments that its not. It's a difficult issue and I've heard people whose views I respect take both sides. So...I'll accept whatever decision the court decides. But....

...I think it would be disastrous to only strike down the mandate. That would make all the good things (like the band on pre-existing conditions) completely untenable and the law would no longer resemble what was voted on. Is it normal for the court to dice and slice laws like this? I just don't get how doing so could possible be within their power. But I must be missing something.






Posted on: 3/29/2012 9:31 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Webmaster
Joined:
2/11/2012 10:32 pm
From Seattle
Posts: 6752
Quote:

chaswv wrote:
The answer to your question is: "yes", "no" and "neither." Your question is that clear.


Ok. I guess you had no point at all then.

Posted on: 3/29/2012 9:32 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
2/18/2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 3411
Quote:

stanleywvu wrote:
Quote:

chaswv wrote:
The answer to your question is: "yes", "no" and "neither." Your question is that clear.


Ok. I guess you had no point at all then.

Everybody is entitled to his or her own guess, I suppose.

Posted on: 3/29/2012 9:37 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
2/18/2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 3411
stanleywvu wrote:
Quote:
.. like the band on pre-existing conditions...

The "band on pre-existing conditions"? Got it.

Posted on: 3/29/2012 9:40 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Webmaster
Joined:
2/11/2012 10:32 pm
From Seattle
Posts: 6752
Quote:

chaswv wrote:
stanleywvu wrote:
Quote:
.. like the band on pre-existing conditions...

The "band on pre-existing conditions"? Got it.


Another excellent point.

Posted on: 3/29/2012 9:43 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
2/18/2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 3411
yelnats:
If 100 elite lawyers (of Biden's acumen) may craft the national rules governing worldly health care, might 100 physicians (of comprable accomplishment) then prescribe doctrines governing dispensation of earthly justice?

"Academically, Biden was undistinguished."

Thanks, Dr. Pepper!

Posted on: 3/29/2012 9:57 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12713
The law isn't about healthcare. It is about healthcare insurance.

Posted on: 3/29/2012 10:13 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Account_Deleted
So healthcare insurance, dos not have any thing to do with Healthcare?


That kinda like saying a pepperoni roll don't have no pepperoni in it.

Lady and Gentleman of the Jury, This is a pepperoni roll, as you can see, it has pepperoni.

Now be like me and order a pizza at 11 at night and blame it on eer's.

Attach file:



jpg  nummy.jpg (100.45 KB)
6336_4f7527144bd13.jpg 625X407 px

Posted on: 3/29/2012 10:24 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/29/2008 4:48 pm
From Deadwood, Lakota Territory
Posts: 8212
Quote:

ncohen wrote:
Quote:

sg44gold wrote:

ncohen wrote:


The above post should appear in an article entitled ...

How to Fail Your Constitional Law Class.


I was top 3rd at harvard law school. What are your con law credentials?


I only went to the oldest independent law school in the nation with a grand tradition of producing governors, senators and leaders.

You figure it out.

And your STILL wrong on your con law arguments.

Posted on: 3/30/2012 8:37 am
_________________
Liberal, Progressive, Socialist, Globalist Fascists in BOTH parties are trying to take over the U.S.A.

Help us Eric Cartman, YOU are our only hope.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12713
Quote:

Billhilly wrote:
So healthcare insurance, dos not have any thing to do with Healthcare?


That kinda like saying a pepperoni roll don't have no pepperoni in it.

Lady and Gentleman of the Jury, This is a pepperoni roll, as you can see, it has pepperoni.

Now be like me and order a pizza at 11 at night and blame it on eer's.


With all due respect, you might want to improve your reading comprehension and logic skills friend. We spend a lot of time chasing down your digressions.

Posted on: 3/30/2012 8:44 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/29/2008 4:48 pm
From Deadwood, Lakota Territory
Posts: 8212
PS - for anyone from the top third of harvard law to state unequivocally that the indivual mandate is "clearly" constitutional tells me that harvard law needs NEW con law professors!!!

Posted on: 3/30/2012 8:45 am
_________________
Liberal, Progressive, Socialist, Globalist Fascists in BOTH parties are trying to take over the U.S.A.

Help us Eric Cartman, YOU are our only hope.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Pitt Hater
Joined:
9/20/2009 2:56 pm
From austin, tx
Posts: 1640
Quote:

sg44gold wrote:
PS - for anyone from the top third of harvard law to state unequivocally that the indivual mandate is "clearly" constitutional tells me that harvard law needs NEW con law professors!!!


Apparently so. one of their (very old) professors, a solicitor general under Reagan, says the law is constitutional:

Reagan solicitor general defends Obamacare (video)

HLS Professor Charles Fried says that the health care law is constitutional.


http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2012/ ... rt-healthcare-review.html


Posted on: 3/30/2012 6:52 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Anonymous
Account_DeletedAnonymous
More pertinent is the current opinion of the nine Justices currently occupying the bench. Anyone who claims that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to have a central government demand that the individual citizen buy anything against their will has the onset of dementia or no knowledge of historical context.

Posted on: 3/30/2012 7:00 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Webmaster
Joined:
2/11/2012 10:32 pm
From Seattle
Posts: 6752
Quote:

wvman75 wrote:
More pertinent is the current opinion of the nine Justices currently occupying the bench. Anyone who claims that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to have a central government demand that the individual citizen buy anything against their will has the onset of dementia or no knowledge of historical context.


The historical context is that this is a conservative idea that was hatched by the conservative Heritage Foundation, embraced by the Republicans (until Obama became president) and actually implemented by the likely Republican candidate for president. Given the historical context that it's had such widespread support at times from both parties kind of belies the implication you're making that it's somehow out of the norm to think this approach is constitutional. Fact is there's a pretty even split with conventional wisdom prior to the Supreme Court testimony that they would uphold the law. Given the nature of the questioning that conventional wisdom seems to have shifted the court will rule against the law. Regardless of the outcome, though, I think it's a wild exaggeration to categorize it as you have.

Posted on: 3/30/2012 9:13 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Grant Ave. Warrior
Joined:
9/20/2006 4:17 pm
Posts: 868
You know what's really funny about ncohen graduating top 1/3 at Harvard Law? So did Obama and he's an idiot! HaHaHa!

Posted on: 3/31/2012 8:29 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/20/2008 1:23 pm
From Just barely outside the Beltway.
Posts: 7347
Quote:

sg44gold wrote:
PS - for anyone from the top third of harvard law to state unequivocally that the indivual mandate is "clearly" constitutional tells me that harvard law needs NEW con law professors!!!


Well, I'd say these feelings stem from a regrettable trend in this country. I call it opinion entitlement.

It's the situation where someone things something, and because they think it - it is therefore true.

Or, in more pedestrian terms: "I think, therefore I'm right", or to quote Issac Asimov

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.".



Posted on: 3/31/2012 8:46 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
12/9/2009 10:45 am
From durham, nc
Posts: 5001
Open in new window

Posted on: 3/31/2012 8:53 am
_________________
Most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be. ~Abraham Lincoln

I don't stand by anything. ~Donald J. Trump
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
2/18/2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 3411
zwaaa:

I truly don't understand your post, but you have a right to post it! I think I comprehend the point of the Asimov quote (and it comes off as a half-measure intended as an insult to those who disagree with the intelligentsia). sg44gold's point, as I understand it, is that the expressed confidence of a top law student commentator (not paid adovcate in the case) about the "clarity" of authority supporting the mandate (in light of legal precedent and the text of the Constitution) belies an utter lack of critical thinking skills of the purported "top law student". Likewise, I am fascinated at how "surprised" the Obama Administration (and progressives in the media and politics--think former Speaker Nancy Pelosi) at learning questions hostile to PPACA could be forcefully raised by very smart people and that top advocates for PPACA struggled to muster a cogent defense of the legislation.

If one dispassionalely examines the real life results of central planners' ideas, one might suggest that the intellectual community could swallow a large dose of humility. Some of the best (hard) scientists are more fascinated about what is not known (and may be unknowable) than telling other people how they ought to live given what they think they know.....

It is worse in the social sciences. Central planning programs concocted and established well intentioned but overly confident intellectuals are often revealed as utter failures, causing much greater harm than good. Trade offs, incentives, human nature, "the knowledge problem", imperfect individuals, etc. are often glossed over when central planners execute their ideas by directing the lives of others (or at least compel others to forego choice).

Perhaps those seeking to protect liberty (and possibly categorized by Asimov as "anti-intellectual") see elitist intellectuals' programs as not merely flawed efforts but tyranical. I find that a refreshing trend, not regrettable.

Posted on: 3/31/2012 9:12 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/20/2008 1:23 pm
From Just barely outside the Beltway.
Posts: 7347
Quote:

chaswv wrote:
zwaaa:

I truly don't understand your post, but you have a right to post it! I think I comprehend the point of the Asimov quote (and it comes off as a half-measure intended as an insult to those who disagree with the intelligentsia).


I disagree with your opinion of the Asimov quite. I think it is spot on.

Quote:
sg44gold's point, as I understand it, is that the expressed confidence of a top law student commentator (not paid adovcate in the case) about the "clarity" of authority supporting the mandate (in light of legal precedent and the text of the Constitution) belies an utter lack of critical thinking skills of the purported "top law student". Likewise, I am fascinated at how "surprised" the Obama Administration (and progressives in the media and politics--think former Speaker Nancy Pelosi) at learning questions hostile to PPACA could be forcefully raised by very smart people and that top advocates for PPACA struggled to muster a cogent defense of the legislation.


No. Sg44gold's point in this post, and most of his posts (but not all) is that the person who disagrees with him is wrong based solely on the fact of disagreement. His posts historically have an assumption of absolute correctness that is beyond reproach, and therefore all arguments are automatically incorrect. The usual "fact" used to support his conclusions is generally "well, you're just a stupid liberal...QED". Along with that assumption is what can be called a notable deficit of concrete points of logic or cited facts.

Quote:
If one dispassionalely examines the real life results of central planners' ideas, one might suggest that the intellectual community could swallow a large dose of humility. Some of the best (hard) scientists are more fascinated about what is not known (and may be unknowable) than telling other people how they ought to live given what they think they know.....


and there you have it. Dispassionately....Examine.

Can you tell me where the dispassionate examination is in the statement "for anyone from the top third of harvard law to state unequivocally that the indivual mandate is "clearly" constitutional tells me that harvard law needs NEW con law professors!!!


Quote:
It is worse in the social sciences. Central planning programs concocted and established well intentioned but overly confident intellectuals are often revealed as utter failures, causing much greater harm than good. Trade offs, incentives, human nature, "the knowledge problem", imperfect individuals, etc. are often glossed over when central planners execute their ideas by directing the lives of others (or at least compel others to forego choice).


Right, clearly the proper choice is to do nothing. To not take a risk on the off chance that you might be wrong or that the statistical number of people that will undoubtedly disagree with you will cherry pick data to indicate that you are wrong. Just sit back and let these situations fester and grow to their logical conclusion.

Quote:
Perhaps those seeking to protect liberty (and possibly categorized by Asimov as "anti-intellectual") see elitist intellectuals' programs as not merely flawed efforts but tyranical. I find that a refreshing trend, not regrettable.


No, I really don't see this in that way. I think (note the use of the words "I think"...) that the point of Asimov's statement (and "I think" it is spot on) is that we have people of intelligence on both sides, and then we have people that simply like to sound like they know what they are talking about, and when they get called on it they suddenly start engaging in intellectual class warfare. How many times in this forum have those who get cornered in arguments with logic and facts start whining about those awful liberals/conservatives "ganging up on us" or "picking on us" .

I find nothing refreshing at all about the concept of people building their belief structures by simply deciding what they want to feel based on a world view that stops at the end of their driveway, rather than looking at the situations that we find ourselves in. If you do...good lick with that.


Here endeth the rant!

Posted on: 3/31/2012 10:14 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
2/18/2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 3411
Nice rant, zwaaa! Not sure I disagree with much of it and I better understand what you meant. Thanks for taking the time to 'splain it to me.

Posted on: 3/31/2012 11:18 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 



« 1 2 (3) 4 5 6 ... 97 »




Login
Username:

Password:

remember me





Copyright © 2004-2011 wemustignitethiscouch.com All Rights Reserved