'It's Constitutional. Bitches'

[Kathianne]

So twittered the Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee. How civil and telling of what the leadership of Democrat Party thinks of their fellow, dissenting Americans.

http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/235397-dnc-staffers-go-off-script-celebrating-healthcare-ruling


They aren’t the three words the Democratic National Committee intended to define their response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on healthcare, but they instantly whipped around the Internet thanks to the power of Twitter: “It's constitutional. Bitches.”

https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/1734822952/images_normal.jpg Patrick Gaspard @patrickgaspard (https://twitter.com/patrickgaspard) <iframe class="twt-follow-button" allowtransparency="true" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.html?align=right&button=grey&screen_name=patrickgaspard&show_count=false&show_screen_name=false&lang=en" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
it's constitutional. Bitches.

28 Jun 12 (https://twitter.com/patrickgaspard/statuses/218347872163344386)



Patrick Gaspard, the Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee, tweeted the news at 10:19 a.m. Thursday, responding to a fight that has raged along partisan lines since 2009.

Three hours after he sent it, Gaspard’s tweet had been retweeted 1,525 times and saved 333.


<script language="JavaScript"> GA_googleFillSlot("TwitterRoomSquare1_300x250"); </script><script src="http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ads?correlator=1426778922024097&output=json_html&callback=GA_googleSetAdContentsBySlotForSync&impl=s&pstok=tkz-0zTAk-AKDQoLCPmO6QgQmZT46DMKDQoLCJnUnQMQwfv0wDAKAAoNCgsI-anUAhCJspCSGQoNCgsI-anUAhCRsZCSGQ&client=ca-pub-5456982649231368&slotname=TwitterRoomSquare1_300x250&page_slots=TwitterRoomLeaderboard_728x90%2CLeftEar _184x90%2CPushdown_970x66_expandable%2CHouseTest_H PButton87x83%2CHouseTest_HPButton87x83_2%2CTwitter RoomSquare1_300x250&cust_params=Section%3D10%26Category%3D271%26Articl e%3D235397&cookie=ID%3D862fc6a510466513%3AT%3D1338844907%3AS% 3DALNI_MaXAvA98o70qVNSS6_OMv619DB7Sw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fblogs%2Ftwitter-room%2Fother-news%2F235397-dnc-staffers-go-off-script-celebrating-healthcare-ruling&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26r ct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%2 6ved%3D0CAgQqQIwAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Ftheh ill.com%252Fblogs%252Ftwitter-room%252Fother-news%252F235397-dnc-staffers-go-off-script-celebrating-healthcare-ruling%26ei%3DqSjtT524F8q7rQGs5OWPAg%26usg%3DAFQjC NGo6zzgEks1KCzYLwMB6NUjDtVrmQ%26sig2%3DVfRxijSo9kA Ih6BLEMDJZA&lmt=1340942511&dt=1340942533317&cc=100&biw=982&bih=474&adk=3754336720&adx=137&ady=849&ifi=6&oid=3&u_tz=-300&u_his=32&u_java=true&u_h=640&u_w=1024&u_ah=614&u_aw=1024&u_cd=24&u_nplug=10&u_nmime=101&flash=10.3.183&gads=v2&ga_vid=1027398501.1338844904&ga_sid=1340942521&ga_hid=1708271599&ga_fc=true"></script>




The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), far less thrilled about the outcome of the case, fired back (https://twitter.com/NRCC/statuses/218356845021118464): “Do you hear that America? This is what Democrats think about your liberty. ‪”

Gaspard later added he let his “excitement get the better of me.”
https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/1734822952/images_normal.jpg Patrick Gaspard @patrickgaspard (https://twitter.com/patrickgaspard) <iframe class="twt-follow-button" allowtransparency="true" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.html?align=right&button=grey&screen_name=patrickgaspard&show_count=false&show_screen_name=false&lang=en" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
I let my scotus excitement get the better of me. In all seriousness, this is an important moment in improving the lives of all Americans.

28 Jun 12 (https://twitter.com/patrickgaspard/statuses/218355332848685058)



A few other Democratic National Committee staff members could not contain their excitement that the Supreme Court ruled the Affordable Care Act constitutional.

Greg Greene, the DNC new media outreach director, offered (http://twitter.com/ggreeneva/statuses/218350675971682305) “sad trombone” sounds to the Republicans: “Anyone have a trombone? The folks at @GOP need someone to lend them one.”

According to conservative Michelle Malkin’s site Twitchy (http://twitchy.com/2012/06/28/classy-dnc-director-new-media-outreach-director-react-to-obamacare-decision-constitutional-bitches-take-that-mothers/), which took a screenshot, Greene deleted another tweet (https://twitter.com/ggreeneva/statuses/218346205195927552?tw_i=218346205195927552&tw_e=details&tw_p=tweetembed) that suggested a high level of boisterousness in the office: “Overheard in the office: "TAKE THAT MOTHER******S!!"

The NRCC also responded (http://twitter.com/NRCC/statuses/218373647461650432) to Greene’s tweet, which no longer exists.

<a class="screen-name url" href="https://twitter.com/NRCC" data-screen-name="NRCC"> https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/2286477191/flbkowdsh6i4p5uvhis4_normal.jpeg NRCC

<abbr title="Verified Account">✔</abbr>

@NRCC <iframe class="twt-follow-button" allowtransparency="true" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.html?align=right&button=grey&screen_name=NRCC&show_count=false&show_screen_name=false&lang=en" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
America: this DNC Senior Staffer celebrates while you get taxed: Overheard in the office: "TAKE THAT MOTHER******S!!" - @ggreeneva (https://twitter.com/ggreeneva)

28 Jun 12 (https://twitter.com/NRCC/statuses/218373647461650432)



Steve Walker, the deputy national political director, also suggested a high level of celebration in the office, tweeting that he high-fived DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.).

https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/2159043664/image_normal.jpg Steve Walker @stevenlwalker (https://twitter.com/stevenlwalker) <iframe class="twt-follow-button" allowtransparency="true" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.html?align=right&button=grey&screen_name=stevenlwalker&show_count=false&show_screen_name=false&lang=en" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
Just got a high five from @DWStweets (https://twitter.com/DWStweets).

28 Jun 12 (https://twitter.com/stevenlwalker/statuses/218355477636067330)



The DNC confirmed that the unverified accounts do belong to employees. The official DNC accounts belonging to Communications Director Brad Woodhouse and National Press Secretary Melanie Roussell stayed silent until the president delivered a statement shortly after noon.


Later in the afternoon, Republicans popularized the hashtag #ObamaCareInThreeWords, very likely a response to Gaspard's tweet.

<a class="screen-name url" href="https://twitter.com/GOPWhip" data-screen-name="GOPWhip"> https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/1291440593/Picture_2_normal.png Kevin McCarthy

<abbr title="Verified Account">✔</abbr>

@GOPWhip <iframe class="twt-follow-button" allowtransparency="true" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.html?align=right&button=grey&screen_name=GOPWhip&show_count=false&show_screen_name=false&lang=en" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
#ObamaCareInThreeWords (https://twitter.com/search/%23ObamaCareInThreeWords) --> We Will Repeal. #FullRepeal (https://twitter.com/search/%23FullRepeal) #ObamaTax (https://twitter.com/search/%23ObamaTax)

28 Jun 12 (https://twitter.com/GOPWhip/statuses/218405972031442945)



Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus then called on Wasserman Schultz to condemn Gaspard's comment.

<a class="screen-name url" href="https://twitter.com/Reince" data-screen-name="Reince"> https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/1312615150/Reince-Priebus_normal.jpg Reince Priebus

<abbr title="Verified Account">✔</abbr>

[ConHog]

Twitter be evil.

[logroller]

If a huge mass of people had been tellin me for years the legislation, that I had spent years developing and defending, was unconstitutional--and then it was found to be constitutional-- I'd be crass too. Probably wouldnt post it on the Internet though.

[avatar4321]

doesnt matter what the courts say. Its still unconstitutional.

[tournesol]

doesnt matter what the courts say. Its still unconstitutional.

I don't think it works that way.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb_c10058120120629120100.jpg

[Kathianne]

If a huge mass of people had been tellin me for years the legislation, that I had spent years developing and defending, was unconstitutional--and then it was found to be constitutional-- I'd be crass too. Probably wouldnt post it on the Internet though.

and yet, the person quoted has had zero to do with the mess known as Obamacare.

[red states rule]

and yet, the person quoted has had zero to do with the mess known as Obamacare.

Much like the Obamacare supporters here who are bellowing how it is now constitutional and there is nothing we can do about it

[OCA]

doesnt matter what the courts say. Its still unconstitutional.

Sorry, you're wrong unless you can prove to us why you are more of a constitutional expert than the 9 sitting judges.

Don't let sour grapes ruin your glass of wine.

[fj1200]

Sorry, you're wrong unless you can prove to us why you are more of a constitutional expert than the 5 sitting judges.

;)

[revelarts]

I don't think it works that way.

What the SCOTUS says is constitutional is usually enforced as law but is Not always constitutional.
It's a point I've tried to make over and over.
The framers wrote the doc in pretty plain English unlike many laws today. A plain honest reading is the 1st position. Then viewed and weight honestly with SCOTUS Precedence the 2nd. the liberal notion of living doc etc is just BS. that's not how you do law. when your standing up for speeding ticket the judge doesn't talk about speeding laws as a "living doc" and doesn't read the speed limit as

" ...well 55 miles per hours is relative, and not applicable. Driving 50 is STILL breaking the law because the police said so and it's in the Penumbra of the law..."

Any honest person would say the judge has made that crap up. Only people WHO WANT the Speed limit lower would rationalize that somehow now 50 miles an hour is REALLY the law even though the sign says 55. BUT if the cops enforce it, it has the force of law even though it clearly is just a judges misrepresentation.


it's not the 1st time the SCOTUS has made unconstitutional decisions. and I'm extremely disappointed here. kinda reminds me of the dred scott case though:

In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.

The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.

Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

Abolitionists were incensed. Although disappointed, Frederick Douglass, found a bright side to the decision and announced, "my hopes were never brighter than now." For Douglass, the decision would bring slavery to the attention of the nation and was a step toward slavery's ultimate destruction.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html

Was that "constitutional"? the SCOTUS said so. it's the law, right?

look folks, The defining principal of the declaration of independence and the constitution is individual liberty. Sadly many seem to think today "no ... no" it's "safety" or "general welfare". Well OK, big brother will give you both, you just won't have any choice on how they are defined or administered.

[OCA]

;)

Oh excuse me, the 5 who voted for it.

[fj1200]

Oh excuse me, the 5 who voted for it.

An important distinction.

[OCA]

An important distinction.

Including the supposed "conservative" who cast the deciding vote, nominated by W...........delicious isn't it?

[jimnyc]

Including the supposed "conservative" who cast the deciding vote, nominated by W...........delicious isn't it?

Coming back here just to THINK your rubbing stuff in certain peoples faces isn't working. Whatever increases we see in premiums, co-pays and taxes - you will too.

[fj1200]

Including the supposed "conservative" who cast the deciding vote, nominated by W...........delicious isn't it?

It seems you prefer losses of freedoms and expansions of power by the State. Bully for you.

[OCA]

Coming back here just to THINK your rubbing stuff in certain peoples faces isn't working. Whatever increases we see in premiums, co-pays and taxes - you will too.

Don't be a hater!

I've been doing exactly what you asked....clean debating.

[jimnyc]

It seems you prefer losses of freedoms and expansions of power by the State. Bully for you.

Nah, he just likes to get a rise out of others by mocking the situation. He's even told a few others that this is what he likes to do.

[OCA]

It seems you prefer losses of freedoms and expansions of power by the State. Bully for you.

Which freedoms did we lose?

[OCA]

Nah, he just likes to get a rise out of others by mocking the situation. He's even told a few others that this is what he likes to do.

Wrong...today anyway.

[fj1200]

Which freedoms did we lose?

Haven't been paying attention eh? Go ahead and enjoy your ability to NOT have HC insurance and NOT be taxed... oh wait. But I'm sure the regulators in DC will doing their usual upstanding job of controlling market choices that they have already done with HC insurance. :rolleyes:

[DragonStryk72]

So twittered the Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee. How civil and telling of what the leadership of Democrat Party thinks of their fellow, dissenting Americans.

http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/235397-dnc-staffers-go-off-script-celebrating-healthcare-ruling

Now, here's the thing: That doesn't mean it's actually constitutional. Think about it like this: If the justices voted 5-4 in favor of dolphin rape, that wouldn't make that either constitutional, or right. And the very fact that it passed by such a narrow margin says it was a close call.

[DragonStryk72]

Which freedoms did we lose?

The inherent right to choose what we do, and do not buy. the government is specifically mandated that they cannot force the citizens to buy somethign. Well, they've done just that.

[fj1200]

The inherent right to choose what we do, and do not buy. the government is specifically mandated that they cannot force the citizens to buy somethign. Well, they've done just that.

Actually they mandated that they can tax when you do not buy. A ridiculous distinction I would agree.

[OCA]

Haven't been paying attention eh? Go ahead and enjoy your ability to NOT have HC insurance and NOT be taxed... oh wait. But I'm sure the regulators in DC will doing their usual upstanding job of controlling market choices that they have already done with HC insurance. :rolleyes:

Do you agree with the current thinking that its ok to not have health insurance but you will still be cared for?

Or like me do you think docs and hospitals ought to be able to tell you to piss off if you have no ins. and no ability to pay in cash?

To not have healt insurance in today's America is the ultimate in irresponsibility.

[OCA]

The inherent right to choose what we do, and do not buy. the government is specifically mandated that they cannot force the citizens to buy somethign. Well, they've done just that.

Well that would be cool but then we need to grant hospitals and docs the right to not treat you if you are uninsured and you have been in a horrible disfiguring accident.

[fj1200]

Do you agree with the current thinking that its ok to not have health insurance but you will still be cared for?

Or like me do you think docs and hospitals ought to be able to tell you to piss off if you have no ins. and no ability to pay in cash?

To not have healt insurance in today's America is the ultimate in irresponsibility.

No, yes, and true. Not exactly the topic of this thread though.

[OCA]

No, yes, and true. Not exactly the topic of this thread though.

It has EVERYTHING to do with this thread.

Its the whole reason for this legislation.

[fj1200]

It has EVERYTHING to do with this thread.

Its the whole reason for this legislation.

Wrong. This thread is about freedoms and the power of the State. Another thread is about government F'ing up the HC market and covering their collective butts in "reforming" it.

[jimnyc]

Do you agree with the current thinking that its ok to not have health insurance but you will still be cared for?

Or like me do you think docs and hospitals ought to be able to tell you to piss off if you have no ins. and no ability to pay in cash?

To not have healt insurance in today's America is the ultimate in irresponsibility.

Emergent care only. Then toss them aside unless they can pay. 50% of the problem solved.

[DragonStryk72]

Actually they mandated that they can tax when you do not buy. A ridiculous distinction I would agree.

And of course, if you do not pay the tax, you get to go to prison. How wonderful of them to start chucking people in jail for being poor.

[OCA]

Emergent care only. Then toss them aside unless they can pay. 50% of the problem solved.

No, include emergent care and you've got something.

[jimnyc]

No, include emergent care and you've got something.

Law states they must treat emergencies. The law doesn't state anything beyond that HAS to be treated. And IF treated for an emergency, the full force of the law should then come down on them afterwards to ensure they pay.

[OCA]

Law states they must treat emergencies. The law doesn't state anything beyond that HAS to be treated. And IF treated for an emergency, the full force of the law should then come down on them afterwards to ensure they pay.

That law NEEDED(note the past tense) to be changed, now its a mute point...all will be insured.....well unless you are a wino, junkie etc. etc., at that point fuck off, society doesn't need you anyway.

[DragonStryk72]

That law NEEDED(note the past tense) to be changed, now its a mute point...all will be insured.....well unless you are a wino, junkie etc. etc., at that point fuck off, society doesn't need you anyway.

Well, no, actually. wino and junkies will be insured (remember medicaid?) 100% at taxpayer expense. No, it's be the people living just over the line to get help, the working poor, who get screwed over. There'll be a fun little rise in the eviction rate as part-time school bus drivers, and folks working multiple part-time jobs get screwed by this mandate, when the costs rise because of the number of people who game the system (wait, so I can 285/year, and completely get out of pay more than 200/month, then, when I get sick, the insurance companies have to take me, and get me fixed up, so then I just hop off the insurance immediately afterward, go back to paying the fee, and it's all good. Well.... the insurance companies'll bankrupt, putting thousands out of work, but that's not my fucking problem.)

[Noir]

Given the patriot act was judged to be constitutional, this should be no surprise. It's not that the patriot act, or obamacare etc are not constitutional, they are, with the caveat that the very meaning of constitutional has been changed by then being declared so.

[fj1200]

And of course, if you do not pay the tax, you get to go to prison. How wonderful of them to start chucking people in jail for being poor.

Pshaw, no poor will go to jail over this. Only some ideologicals that want to prove a point. :glancesatsomeposters:

[AFbombloader]

That law NEEDED(note the past tense) to be changed, now its a mute point...all will be insured.....well unless you are a wino, junkie etc. etc., at that point fuck off, society doesn't need you anyway.

All insured would include wino's, junkies, and all other people who make stupid choices. We will end up paying for them no matter what. how is that better?

[logroller]

What the SCOTUS says is constitutional is usually enforced as law but is Not always constitutional.
It's a point I've tried to make over and over.
The framers wrote the doc in pretty plain English unlike many laws today. A plain honest reading is the 1st position. Then viewed and weight honestly with SCOTUS Precedence the 2nd. the liberal notion of living doc etc is just BS. that's not how you do law. when your standing up for speeding ticket the judge doesn't talk about speeding laws as a "living doc" and doesn't read the speed limit as

" ...well 55 miles per hours is relative, and not applicable. Driving 50 is STILL breaking the law because the police said so and it's in the Penumbra of the law..."

Any honest person would say the judge has made that crap up. Only people WHO WANT the Speed limit lower would rationalize that somehow now 50 miles an hour is REALLY the law even though the sign says 55. BUT if the cops enforce it, it has the force of law even though it clearly is just a judges misrepresentation.


it's not the 1st time the SCOTUS has made unconstitutional decisions. and I'm extremely disappointed here. kinda reminds me of the dred scott case though:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html

Was that "constitutional"? the SCOTUS said so. it's the law, right?

look folks, The defining principal of the declaration of independence and the constitution is individual liberty. Sadly many seem to think today "no ... no" it's "safety" or "general welfare". Well OK, big brother will give you both, you just won't have any choice on how they are defined or administered.
Well speeding I think has as much to do with the constitution as the length of a fork. Your referenced court opinion, not by mere coincidence, preceded both the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution on the very subject; thereby rendering the court's ruling passé. But make no mistake, it was constitutional until we changed the constitution.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

All insured would include wino's, junkies, and all other people who make stupid choices. We will end up paying for them no matter what. how is that better?

Dems want taxes to support drug use, prostitution, gay butt sex diseases and other vices. Free medical for all, especially deviant scum that tend to vote for lousy dems when they are bused in to do so! Its the socialist dem way to lead us to that third world paradise they fantasy about along with butt sex parties and child molesting!
God bless the USA! Should be followed with, and (destroy the dems too).-:laugh:-Tyr

[logroller]

Now, here's the thing: That doesn't mean it's actually constitutional. Think about it like this: If the justices voted 5-4 in favor of dolphin rape, that wouldn't make that either constitutional, or right. And the very fact that it passed by such a narrow margin says it was a close call.
Yes it does make it Constitutional because their authority to proclaim such is vested by the constitution itself. However, just because its constitutional doesnt makes it right. The constitution is a law like any other; it just happens to be the supreme law of the land. But there are legally prescribed ways to right the law, up to and including amending the constitution itself.

[revelarts]

Well speeding I think has as much to do with the constitution as the length of a fork. Your referenced court opinion, not by mere coincidence, preceded both the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution on the very subject; thereby rendering the court's ruling passé. But make no mistake, it was constitutional until we changed the constitution.

Are speed limit laws real law based on text you can read?
Is the constitution law, law based on text you can clearly read?

law is law. why muffle the point. If anything the Constitution should be MORE strictly adhered to than simple traffic laws.

And your point concerning Dred scott being enforced as law until amendments were added is true as i said.
Being "constitutional" however is another matter. It was a bad INCORRECT decision just as a Judge saying 50mph "is the law" even though it clearly reads 55mph on the sign.

I've made no mistake.
And as DragonS pointed out if the SCOTUS rules that --rape is "constitutional" if federal judges do it-- it does NOT make it constitutional or right. it may make it the law.

And please don't tell me that's extreme, it doesn't matter, the point stands on the scope of the law not on how far the ruling falls outside of it.


I don't know why this line concerning Constitutionally pops into my mind.
If the ruling don't fit, it's not legit

[revelarts]

Pshaw, no poor will go to jail over this. Only some ideologicals that want to prove a point. :glancesatsomeposters:

Can you guarantee that FJ?

[fj1200]

Can you guarantee that FJ?

Yeah, pretty much.

[ConHog]

Yeah, pretty much.

Unless we become a dictatorship. Then all bets are off.

[revelarts]

Can you guarantee that FJ?

Ok sure the IRS has never abused it's powers.


And Like the patriot act "will only be used to arrest terrorist" huh?

In America, over 200 people have been sent to prison for raising their voices on commercial airline flights, convicted of felonies under the laws of the Patriot Act.


One of those 200 people is Tamera Freeman, who spent three months in prison and was convicted of a felony for spanking her misbehaved children and raising her voice to a flight attendant. When the plane landed, she was arrested as a terrorist and eventually forced to plead guilty to felony crimes under the Patriot Act.

In another case, the LA Times reports, "a couple was arrested after an argument with a flight attendant, who claimed the couple was engaged in overt sexual activity. An FBI affidavit said the two were "embracing, kissing and acting in a manner that made other passengers uncomfortable.""

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000681_Patriot_Act_terrorism_air_travel.html# ixzz1zCZNuwes

[logroller]

Are speed limit laws real law based on text you can read?
Is the constitution law, law based on text you can clearly read?

law is law. why muffle the point. If anything the Constitution should be MORE strictly adhered to than simple traffic laws.

And your point concerning Dred scott being enforced as law until amendments were added is true as i said.
Being "constitutional" however is another matter. It was a bad INCORRECT decision just as a Judge saying 50mph "is the law" even though it clearly reads 55mph on the sign.

I've made no mistake.
And as DragonS pointed out if the SCOTUS rules that --rape is "constitutional" if federal judges do it-- it does NOT make it constitutional or right. it may make it the law.

And please don't tell me that's extreme, it doesn't matter, the point stands on the scope of the law not on how far the ruling falls outside of it.


I don't know why this line concerning Constitutionally pops into my mind.
If the ruling don't fit, it's not legit
Is there something in federal code concerning municipal speed limit enforcement by the fed? It's a bad comparison. Like saying donuts are round with a hole; so are tires; thus the FDA and DOT are enjoined in enforcement of all laws pertaining to either--The law is the law. A better comparison would be two landmark cases where one repudiated the other without a change to the Constitution, only its interpretation by the court, e.g. Plessy v. and Brown v.
Which would make a decent debate in the Consitution forum.

As to the bold, rhetoric! Legitimacy of the court's ruling is provided by the Constitution itself. I admit it's circular, but so too is the dismissal of such authority on Constitutional grounds. You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything. our system of law holds the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of legal disputes. Politically, as the chief justice stated, we have prescribed methods of resolving issues where any law is perceived to have failed.

[ConHog]

Ok sure the IRS has never abused it's powers.


And Like the patriot act "will only be used to arrest terrorist" huh?

What does the TSA have to do with the IRS? :shrug:

[revelarts]

Is there something in federal code concerning municipal speed limit enforcement by the fed? It's a bad comparison.
why are you making the comparison where i haven't put it. this is a straw man.
speeding is a law, the constitution is law , they both have clear meanings. what's not clear Log. It's a simple logical syllogism.



Like saying donuts are round with a hole; so are tires; thus the FDA and DOT are enjoined in enforcement of all laws pertaining to either--The law is the law. i would have to say that donuts ARE tires and tires are tires for that to work Log. Your being silly, but if FDA and the DOT did begin enforcing laws on donuts you, FJ and Con would probably defend that to.



A better comparison would be two landmark cases where one repudiated the other without a change to the Constitution, only its interpretation by the court, e.g. Plessy v. and Brown v.
Which would make a decent debate in the Consitution forum.

As to the bold, rhetoric! Legitimacy of the court's ruling is provided by the Constitution itself. I admit it's circular, but so too is the dismissal of such authority on Constitutional grounds. You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything. our system of law holds the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of legal disputes. Politically, as the chief justice stated, we have prescribed methods of resolving issues where any law is perceived to have failed.
An honest reading of the LAW is supreme above any mistaken handling.
Our system of law holds the people as supreme arbiter of the all of the gov't. as uncomfrtable as that makes some feel.

look, the SCOTUS or the congress or the Prez do not have the constitutional right to make any ol BS up and claim it's constitutional Log. It's not just rhetoric to call it double-speak when they try it.
for example
--You have the right to not have you home searched without a warrant that's what the constitution clearly says, that's what it IS, Except now you don't have that right, but it's constitutional?---
It's BS log. It's logically irreconcilable. A is not A in that world.

the obamacare ruling is NOT constitutional, it's just a thinly veiled power grab that you either buy or you don't. You con and FJ buy whatever the gov't is selling that's fine.
"the gov't says that apples are now oranges... well it's the law, so what's wrong with you rev?"
What's wrong with me? Sheesh...

[fj1200]

Ok sure the IRS has never abused it's powers.

And Like the patriot act "will only be used to arrest terrorist" huh?

I GUARANTEE it. Sheesh, my guarantees used to mean something around here. :poke:


the obamacare ruling is NOT constitutional, it's just a thinly veiled power grab that you either buy or you don't. You con and FJ buy whatever the gov't is selling that's fine.

:slap: Who said we "bought" anything? SCOTUS has spoken, you don't agree, I don't agree, most here don't agree, but right now the legal challenges are done. We get the laws we deserve, good and bad, so it's up to the people to decide on the direction. The law sucks by building on past governmental failures so if we get repeal without a true attempt at reform we're going to get worse than this because there WILL be backlash against those who repealed without replacement.

[ConHog]

why are you making the comparison where i haven't put it. this is a straw man.
speeding is a law, the constitution is law , they both have clear meanings. what's not clear Log. It's a simple logical syllogism.

i would have to say that donuts ARE tires and tires are tires for that to work Log. Your being silly, but if FDA and the DOT did begin enforcing laws on donuts you, FJ and Con would probably defend that to.


An honest reading of the LAW is supreme above any mistaken handling.
Our system of law holds the people as supreme arbiter of the all of the gov't. as uncomfrtable as that makes some feel.

look, the SCOTUS or the congress or the Prez do not have the constitutional right to make any ol BS up and claim it's constitutional Log. It's not just rhetoric to call it double-speak when they try it.
for example
--You have the right to not have you home searched without a warrant that's what the constitution clearly says, that's what it IS, Except now you don't have that right, but it's constitutional?---
It's BS log. It's logically irreconcilable. A is not A in that world.

the obamacare ruling is NOT constitutional, it's just a thinly veiled power grab that you either buy or you don't. You con and FJ buy whatever the gov't is selling that's fine.
"the gov't says that apples are now oranges... well it's the law, so what's wrong with you rev?"
What's wrong with me? Sheesh...



Actually, SCOTUS can pretty much declare anything constitutional or unconstitutional if it is brought before them. That is in fact their entire point.

If SCOTUS ruled that waterboarding was not a violation of the 4th for example, guess what? It's not.

Here's an example. Sobriety checkpoints. The Court in fact said " A sobriety check point IS a technical violation of the 4th, but a minor one and so not a violation." Hey that sounds sorta contradictory doesn't it?

[revelarts]

:slap: Who said we "bought" anything? SCOTUS has spoken, you don't agree, I don't agree, most here don't agree,
ok fine didn't mean to mesrep your position



but right now the legal challenges are done. We get the laws we deserve, good and bad,...
well that's kind of a karmic idea there. i think BAD or maybe i should say good hearted but sadly misguided folks are doing us wrong.



...so it's up to the people to decide on the direction. The law sucks by building on past governmental failures so if we get repeal without a true attempt at reform we're going to get worse than this because there WILL be backlash against those who repealed without replacement. You have point here..

[logroller]

why are you making the comparison where i haven't put it. this is a straw man.

This is what you used as a parallel example


" ...well 55 miles per hours is relative, and not applicable. Driving 50 is STILL breaking the law because the police said so and it's in the Penumbra of the law..."


If you read carefully, the speed limit is the MAXIMUM speed limit; which plainly indicates going over it is speeding. By stating maximum, it doesn't preclude other lesser speeds from being considered speeding within the context of law. Indeed, speeding laws clearly state such; else I could drive 65 MPH into stopped traffic and claim the law failed.
The logical syllogism between the reading of the Constitution and a municipal law have little to do with each other...other than they are both laws. I mean, I wouldn't use the law of gravity to justify PPACA; its just weak.

[KitchenKitten99]

Do you agree with the current thinking that its ok to not have health insurance but you will still be cared for?

Or like me do you think docs and hospitals ought to be able to tell you to piss off if you have no ins. and no ability to pay in cash?

To not have healt insurance in today's America is the ultimate in irresponsibility.

OCA... what do you do for a living? I am just curious.

[logroller]

OCA... what do you do for a living? I am just curious.

I know it infers employment/ occupation, but I've never liked the phrase, "doing something for a living". It just confuses me, because I'm thinking, whats 'a living'?... I drink, eat and breath. That keeps me living. Regardless, I'd say "resident troll" is more of a pastime than 'a living' anyways. (sorry OCA, couldn't pass that one up ;))

[OCA]

OCA... what do you do for a living? I am just curious.

Run a small cleaning company and by small I mean myself and sometimes my wife and oldest son.

And before somebody says something assinine if I was going to make something up it would surely be more grandiose than that.

[red states rule]

Ok sure the IRS has never abused it's powers.


And Like the patriot act "will only be used to arrest terrorist" huh?

and with Obamacare, about 4,000 new IRS agents have been hired to collect all the taxes included in Obamacare

So much for the cost of government being controlled and Obama's promise noone who makes under $250,000/yr will "pay a penny more in taxes"

[OCA]

I know it infers employment/ occupation, but I've never liked the phrase, "doing something for a living". It just confuses me, because I'm thinking, whats 'a living'?... I drink, eat and breath. That keeps me living. Regardless, I'd say "resident troll" is more of a pastime than 'a living' anyways. (sorry OCA, couldn't pass that one up ;))

No probs, i'm under strict orders to keep it clean on the "top half" but i've already chewed off 3 fingers in order to stop myself from sticking a knife in and believe me.....there are in the last week or two hundreds if not thousands of opportunities just begging for it.

That debate between you and RSR was a doozy! Did it not go almost like I said?

[red states rule]

Run a small cleaning company and by small I mean myself and sometimes my wife and oldest son.

And before somebody says something assinine if I was going to make something up it would surely be more grandiose than that.

Yea, "small"

Seems your knowledge of economics is only surpassed by Obama's "shitload of economic experience" you claimed he had

As the LR debate is fine. Unlike you, I was wokring about 60 hours a week thanks to Obama's economic polcies causing people to lose thier jobs and thus defaulting on their mortgage

LR is up now in the debate and I am looking forward to his second response

[jimnyc]

Just a reminder... Keep it cool in here or go to the cage.

[OCA]

Yea, "small"

Seems your knowledge of economics is only surpassed by Obama's "shitload of economic experience" you claimed he had

As the LR debate is fine. Unlike you, I was wokring about 60 hours a week thanks to Obama's economic polcies causing people to lose thier jobs and thus defaulting on their mortgage

LR is up now in the debate and I am looking forward to his second response

Yes..."small"........at least I run the show. How is it working for "the man"?

It sucks not being the shot caller, don't it?

In most minds you've alreadt lost the debate by default.

[red states rule]

Yes..."small"........at least I run the show. How is it working for "the man"?

It sucks not being the shot caller, don't it?

In most minds you've alreadt lost the debate by default.

It is fine. I am debt free. Moved into a large 3BR Cape Home house, increased my 401K contribution, have damn good numbers half way thru the year, and unlike you I am very happy with my life

[OCA]

It is fine. I am debt free. Moved into a large 3BR Cape Home house, increased my 401K contribution, have damn good numbers half way thru the year, and unlike you I am very happy with my life

You know me? Yes, thats because you are obsessed with me....I'm your well.........hero.

[red states rule]

You know me? Yes, thats because you are obsessed with me....I'm your well.........hero.

I do know you. Without you Mike, I never would have found this site. Your desire to PO Jillian was the reason you brought me here

She's gone and now you are the one getting PO'd

Have a great day!!!

Oh and BTW Happy Birthday

[OCA]

I do know you. Without you Mike, I never would have found this site. Your desire to PO Jillian was the reason you brought me here

She's gone and now you are the one getting PO'd

Have a great day!!!

Worst thing ever to happen to DP.

I'm happy as a clam....lets get it going in the cage.

[red states rule]

Worst thing ever to happen to DP.

I'm happy as a clam....lets get it going in the cage.

I know you being here is not a good thing, and as far as the cage - no thanks

I have other things to do right now

But by all means go there and wait if you like and again - Happy Birthday

[OCA]

I know you being here is not a good thing, and as far as the cage - no thanks

I have other things to do right now

But by all means go there and wait if you like and again - Happy Birthday

You flame like little kids.

[jimnyc]

Just a reminder... Keep it cool in here or go to the cage.

...

[ConHog]

I know it infers employment/ occupation, but I've never liked the phrase, "doing something for a living". It just confuses me, because I'm thinking, whats 'a living'?... I drink, eat and breath. That keeps me living. Regardless, I'd say "resident troll" is more of a pastime than 'a living' anyways. (sorry OCA, couldn't pass that one up ;))

I actually think Jim pays him to troll. Wonder if he provides healthcare insurance? :lol:

[OCA]

Worst thing ever to happen to DP.

I'm happy as a clam....lets get it going in the cage.


...............

[jimnyc]

...............

Continuing the crap, removed from this thread.

[aboutime]

Continuing the crap, removed from this thread.


Thanks....I think. Most of us who are still rather new here, just happened to come from a place where what you are attempting to stop. Took place daily, and in great numbers. All designed with one thing in mind.
To make other members so angry that they simply decided. It wasn't worth the effort when dealing with the feeble minded, who claim to be the sole authorities, and control everything.

The entire nation has become just as divided because the One Person who should be setting the example for the entire nation. IS DETERMINED TO ABUSE, AND IGNORE THE LAWS.

No need to say his name. But it sounds like a well known liar named OBAMA.

[KitchenKitten99]

Run a small cleaning company ...

Ok. So I would like to contract you to clean my retail shop. But I am going to tell you what I will pay you. You don't get to set your own prices. Oh, and you have to give me a better price than my neighbor who runs a bar, because my income is less than her's.

Oh, and all the costs of your supplies and chemicals are increasing as well, though you cannot adjust your prices unless you apply for a variance through the government. But hey, you're rich. You can afford the increase until they decide to approve or not approve your price increases.

Oh yeah, and some of the chemicals you use, are now deemed illegal. You have to use what we tell you that you can use.

[red states rule]

Ok. So I would like to contract you to clean my retail shop. But I am going to tell you what I will pay you. You don't get to set your own prices. Oh, and you have to give me a better price than my neighbor who runs a bar, because my income is less than her's.

Oh, and all the costs of your supplies and chemicals are increasing as well, though you cannot adjust your prices unless you apply for a variance through the government. But hey, you're rich. You can afford the increase until they decide to approve or not approve your price increases.

Oh yeah, and some of the chemicals you use, are now deemed illegal. You have to use what we tell you that you can use.

Yea, there will be a time when he can make a profit - but now it not the time

He should be in business for the common good - not to -gasp - make a profit

[Missileman]

Do you agree with the current thinking that its ok to not have health insurance but you will still be cared for?

Or like me do you think docs and hospitals ought to be able to tell you to piss off if you have no ins. and no ability to pay in cash?

To not have healt insurance in today's America is the ultimate in irresponsibility.

So under Obamacare, since insurance companies now have to cover pre-existing conditions, a person elects to pay the tax to the IRS instead of a premium to an insurance company. This person gets ill, goes to an insurance company and gets coverage, the insurance company, who didn't receive a nickel of that tax for that person, now has to pay out all kinds of money after having only received ONE premium payment from this person. How long do you figure private insurance companies will be able to stay in business under those conditions. You're going to see a stampede of people dropping their insurance, opting for the tax, and signing up for insurance only when they need it...you can bank on it.

[red states rule]

So under Obamacare, since insurance companies now have to cover pre-existing conditions, a person elects to pay the tax to the IRS instead of a premium to an insurance company. This person gets ill, goes to an insurance company and gets coverage, the insurance company, who didn't receive a nickel of that tax for that person, now has to pay out all kinds of money after having only received ONE premium payment from this person. How long do you figure private insurance companies will be able to stay in business under those conditions. You're going to see a stampede of people dropping their insurance, opting for the tax, and signing up for insurance only when they need it...you can bank on it.


and thus the cost of ins will skyrocket

The taxpayer will get hosed in every direction under Obamacare

[logroller]

So under Obamacare, since insurance companies now have to cover pre-existing conditions, a person elects to pay the tax to the IRS instead of a premium to an insurance company. This person gets ill, goes to an insurance company and gets coverage, the insurance company, who didn't receive a nickel of that tax for that person, now has to pay out all kinds of money after having only received ONE premium payment from this person. How long do you figure private insurance companies will be able to stay in business under those conditions. You're going to see a stampede of people dropping their insurance, opting for the tax, and signing up for insurance only when they need it...you can bank on it.
So. Then raise the tax.

[Missileman]

So. Then raise the tax.

The tax will have to be equal to what it costs for an insurance policy, and since insurance rates are going to skyrocket, there isn't a high enough tax bracket to cover that contingency.

[logroller]

The tax will have to be equal to what it costs for an insurance policy, and since insurance rates are going to skyrocket, there isn't a high enough tax bracket to cover that contingency.

Insurance costs rising due to pre-existing conditions will be temporary; the tax rises slowly because of this.

[ConHog]

The tax will have to be equal to what it costs for an insurance policy, and since insurance rates are going to skyrocket, there isn't a high enough tax bracket to cover that contingency.

Why do you automatically assume insurance costs will skyrocket? Not saying they absolutely won't; but seems as if you're just assuming they will for the sake of your own argument.

[Missileman]

Insurance costs rising due to pre-existing conditions will be temporary; the tax rises slowly because of this.

If you're going to discourage people from gaming the system, the tax will have to be at least what it costs for insurance. $285 isn't going to be close.

[ConHog]

If you're going to discourage people from gaming the system, the tax will have to be at least what it costs for insurance. $285 isn't going to be close.

I admit I haven't read the bill closely enough to know; but surely they are not going force insurance companies to say insure someone the day after they are diagnosed with cancer or something like that. I don't believe anyway that is the intent.

That being said, I understand and agree that rarely does anything government related work as planned.

[Missileman]

Why do you automatically assume insurance costs will skyrocket? Not saying they absolutely won't; but seems as if you're just assuming they will for the sake of your own argument.

I've explained why they're going to. Obamacare has it set up so can game the system, pay the tax,(of which the insurance companies aren't going to get any), and only buy a policy if they get a condition that requires treatment. Insurance companies are going to have to pay out thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands after receiving one monthly insurance premium. Add in the fact that they can't cap anuual or lifetime payouts for any single insured and you do the math. Who do you think is going to pay for it?

[Missileman]

I admit I haven't read the bill closely enough to know; but surely they are not going force insurance companies to say insure someone the day after they are diagnosed with cancer or something like that. I don't believe anyway that is the intent.

That being said, I understand and agree that rarely does anything government related work as planned.

I see no other way to interpret "insurance companies can NOT turn anyone down for a pre-existing condition"

[ConHog]

I see no other way to interpret "insurance companies can NOT turn anyone down for a pre-existing condition"

well, that will have to be fixed, probably will be to, in 2034.

[Missileman]

well, that will have to be fixed, probably will be to, in 2034.

If Obamacare stays in effect, there won't be a private insurance company still in business by 2018...maybe sooner. IMO, that's what's intended anyways.

[ConHog]

If Obamacare stays in effect, there won't be a private insurance company still in business by 2018...maybe sooner. IMO, that's what's intended anyways.


I happen to agree with you in truth, I don't know why he didn't go for the single payer system to begin with to be honest.

[Missileman]

I happen to agree with you in truth, I don't know why he didn't go for the single payer system to begin with to be honest.

For one thing, single payer doesn't work worth a damn...ask a Canadian.

[ConHog]

For one thing, single payer doesn't work worth a damn...ask a Canadian.

I didn't say it did, I said I'm surprised Obama didn't go for it.

[Missileman]

I didn't say it did, I said I'm surprised Obama didn't go for it.

You'd also have to raise the hell out of taxes to pay for it and the Dems are too politically cowardly to do that. After they've destroyed private healthcare, they can argue they've got no choice.

[SassyLady]

When will they start taxing us for not having dental, or vision insurance. Or, are these part of the Obamacare law.



Q. I’ve heard that I’m required to have insurance. When does that go into effect? And what sort of penalties will I face if I don’t comply?

A. Starting in 2014, most Americans will be required to have health insurance and could face federal penalties if they do not. Taxpayers will be required to indicate on their tax returns whether they have health insurance that meets minimal benefits standards, according to the Commonwealth Fund. If consumers do not have insurance by 2014, they would owe $95, or 1 percent of taxable income, whichever is greater. The penalty rises to $325, or 2 percent of taxable income in 2015, and then $695, or 2.5 percent of taxable income in 2016, up to a maximum of $2,085 per family.

[fj1200]

So under Obamacare, since insurance companies now have to cover pre-existing conditions, a person elects to pay the tax to the IRS instead of a premium to an insurance company. This person gets ill, goes to an insurance company and gets coverage, the insurance company, who didn't receive a nickel of that tax for that person, now has to pay out all kinds of money after having only received ONE premium payment from this person. How long do you figure private insurance companies will be able to stay in business under those conditions. You're going to see a stampede of people dropping their insurance, opting for the tax, and signing up for insurance only when they need it...you can bank on it.

Stop, you're crushing me with the weight of unintended consequences... AAAAAAAAAAAAaaGGGGGGgggHHHHHHHHhhhhhh.


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHsrPsOeetKz0h4fmNWpk3I-UgJ1fOVdPat0cej9BXXxvSTDCV

[Missileman]

Stop, you're crushing me with the weight of unintended consequences... AAAAAAAAAAAAaaGGGGGGgggHHHHHHHHhhhhhh.


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHsrPsOeetKz0h4fmNWpk3I-UgJ1fOVdPat0cej9BXXxvSTDCV

I guess I'm more cynical than you, 'cause IMO, there's nothing unintended about them.

[fj1200]

Insurance costs rising due to pre-existing conditions will be temporary; the tax rises slowly because of this.

No, it rises slowly because they're a bunch of xxxxx's that phase it in to dull the pain.


Why do you automatically assume insurance costs will skyrocket? Not saying they absolutely won't; but seems as if you're just assuming they will for the sake of your own argument.

Ever increasing mandates. Covering kids until 21, birth control mandates...

[ConHog]

No, it rises slowly because they're a bunch of xxxxx's that phase it in to dull the pain.



Ever increasing mandates. Covering kids until 21, birth control mandates...

But theoretically more customers to.

[fj1200]

I guess I'm more cynical than you, 'cause IMO, there's nothing unintended about them.

Did you notice that was Pelosi? Completely unintended on my part but fitting.

[Missileman]

But theoretically more customers to.

Most of whom will be system gamers...wait and see.

[fj1200]

But theoretically more customers to.

??? I'm not sure what you're referring to. More customers but the cost is still higher because more services are required to be offered. That is another reason why insurance costs are so high now, coverage mandates by various states.

[ConHog]

??? I'm not sure what you're referring to. More customers but the cost is still higher because more services are required to be offered. That is another reason why insurance costs are so high now, coverage mandates by various states.

Oh, and you don't think $50 bandages , for instance, might play a part as well?

[fj1200]

Oh, and you don't think $50 bandages , for instance, might play a part as well?

Small part, government is bad mmkay. :poke:

[Kathianne]

So. Then raise the tax.

The insurance companies still won't receive the money. Raise the tax and more people will not be able to pay it, thus the IRA will put leans and garnish wages. Then the people will stop working. Then they'll be on medicaid.

[Kathianne]

Insurance costs rising due to pre-existing conditions will be temporary; the tax rises slowly because of this.

Sure it is. They really thought this through in the few months they took to write those thousands of pages. :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

Why do you automatically assume insurance costs will skyrocket? Not saying they absolutely won't; but seems as if you're just assuming they will for the sake of your own argument.

They already have.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/11907-supreme-court-ruling-on-obamacare-to-boost-insurance-premiums


Friday, 29 June 2012 16:12 <!-- Item title --> Supreme Court Ruling on ObamaCare to Boost Insurance Premiums

<!-- Item Author --> Written by Brian Koenig (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/itemlist/user/79-briankoenig) <!-- Plugins: AfterDisplayTitle --> <!-- K2 Plugins: K2AfterDisplayTitle -->

Now that the Supreme Court has delivered its final verdict on ObamaCare, which upheld the law’s contentious individual mandate, insurance providers and industry groups are warning of even greater premium increases on Americans’ health plans. While President Obama touted the law as a cost-savior for the healthcare industry — going so far as to call it the “Affordable Care Act” — insurance premiums have consistently risen ever since the law was enacted.


America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry’s chief lobbying group, issued a statement following the ruling, stressing the importance of “secure, affordable coverage choices,” but saying (http://www.ahip.org/News/Press-Room/2012/AHIP-Statement-on-Supreme-Court-Ruling.aspx)that “major provisions, such as the premium tax, will have unintended consequences of raising costs and disrupting coverage unless they are addressed.” AHIP CEO Karen Ignagni suggested (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/health-care-law-and-insurance-rates/#ixzz1z9AXqUBA)that due to the inflated costs, “it’s time for people to roll up their sleeves and look very carefully at those provisions.”

...


According to a September 2011 study (http://ehbs.kff.org/)by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit research group, annual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage spiked to more than $15,000 last year, up a sizable nine percent from the previous year. The premium increase inflated much more quickly than employee wages (2.1 percent) and general inflation (3.2 percent).


Commenting on the analysis, president of the Health Research & Education Trust — which helped administer the study — Maulik Joshi said provisions in the law that will be implemented in the future could add to these costs, as he averred, "survey findings related to the impact of early provisions in health reform provide valuable insight for employers, providers, consumers, and policymakers as they prepare for additional provisions to take effect by 2014."


Further, AETNA, the country’s fourth largest insurance provider, disclosed that its health plans increased from one to two percent. “While rate increases are never easy, our rates are based on actuarially sound data and reasonable projection of future cost, which will impact approximately 16,000 customers,” the company affirmed (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/insurance-347932-aetna-health.html)in a recent statement. “Our Medical Loss Ratio is at 86.7%, which is higher than any of the filed rates by our competitors. Medical loss ratio is the percentage of health insurance premiums that insurers use to provide health care to their customers.”


Also disconcerting is the potential for Americans to drop or lose benefits through their employer-sponsored health plans. Fox Business explains (http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/06/29/ready-to-be-insured/) why:



An estimated 134 million Americans with full-time employment have health coverage through their companies. But about two-thirds of those firms could decide that, under Obamacare, their premiums are too expensive, according to a study by insurance broker Willis Group. Kevin McCarty, Florida insurance commissioner and president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, is among those who are "concerned about the potential for increased health insurance premiums and continued disruption to the stability of the marketplace" as a result of the ACA.


For companies that want to drop their own health insurance plans, the ACA offers an easy out: Pay a $2,000 penalty per employee. That's far less than the $10,000 average cost of a health care plan. And that's particularly true if you are a low-income or part-time worker at a company like McDonald's or Walmart that doesn't need to offer a Cadillac health plan to keep employees.


Reporting on the Kaiser study back in September, The New American explained (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/1931-obamacare-causes-health-insurance-premiums-to-rise)that many employers are transitioning their workers to less comprehensive plans with higher out-of-pocket costs (higher co-pays, deductibles, and co-insurance) to curb rising premiums. As a result, 31 percent of insured employees in 2011 had at least a $1,000 deductible, up from 27 percent in 2010 — which many critics are attributing to the president’s healthcare overhaul.


"Without any real national discussion or debate, there’s a quiet revolution going on in what we call health insurance in this country," says (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/27/national/main20112506.shtml)Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Foundation. "Health insurance is becoming less and less comprehensive … And we expect that trend to continue."

[SassyLady]

Originally Posted by ConHog http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=561799#post561799)
Why do you automatically assume insurance costs will skyrocket? Not saying they absolutely won't; but seems as if you're just assuming they will for the sake of your own argument.


They already have.

Yep....


http://news.yahoo.com/obama-thanks-military-tripling-tricare-premiums-235100402.html

The administration's admitted objective to Congress, as reported by the Washington Free Beacon, is "to force military retirees (http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/) to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare."

Under the new plan, Tricare annual premiums will increase 30 percent to 78 percent in the first year. After that the plan more than triples the premium payment in five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent.

"According to congressional assessments,” Free Beacon reported, “a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048."

Additionally, just as Obamacare limits civilians with pre-tax flexible spending accounts or health savings accounts to buying a "medicine or drug (http://www.healthreform.gov/documents/title_ix_revenue_provisions.pdf) only if such medicine or drug" is doctor prescribed -- or pay a 40 percent tax -- the new plan for the military increases co-payments of active duty personnel for pharmaceuticals and eliminates incentives for using less expensive, over-the-counter and generic drugs.

[logroller]

Insurance costs rose over 133% from 1999 to 2009. That's the decade preceding PPACA. I know this is just an anecdote, but I worked for FedEx from 1999-2004 and in that period I saw my benefits decreased and prices rise. I don't understand how that happened because of state mandated coverage. did California require certain minimum coverage durimg this period? Not that I'm aware, so I'm still thinking the cost increase owes itself to another cause, or causes. Like could retiring baby boomers change the cost/benefit ratio for medical provider/ insurance payments? This cost is borne by the industry and spreads this cost among all payers. As theres proportionately less people in the working-age demographic than in the over 65 age, so per capita cost would necessarily rise. Plus, new medical technologies which extend life cost more. Not to blame all the babyboomers either, modern medicine works wonders for saving babies born at ages that, just a decade or two ago, would have been unimaginable. Of course, such technology is expensive. So isn't it possible that the rising cost of insurance premiums aren't purely attributable to big bad gov't intervention, but rather, (hold on, this is a shocker), the rising costs of providing medical care. Whoop there it is!

[Missileman]

Insurance costs rose over 133% from 1999 to 2009. That's the decade preceding PPACA. I know this is just an anecdote, but I worked for FedEx from 1999-2004 and in that period I saw my benefits decreased and prices rise. I don't understand how that happened because of state mandated coverage. did California require certain minimum coverage durimg this period? Not that I'm aware, so I'm still thinking the cost increase owes itself to another cause, or causes. Like could retiring baby boomers change the cost/benefit ratio for medical provider/ insurance payments? This cost is borne by the industry and spreads this cost among all payers. As theres proportionately less people in the working-age demographic than in the over 65 age, so per capita cost would necessarily rise. Plus, new medical technologies which extend life cost more. Not to blame all the babyboomers either, modern medicine works wonders for saving babies born at ages that, just a decade or two ago, would have been unimaginable. Of course, such technology is expensive. So isn't it possible that the rising cost of insurance premiums aren't purely attributable to big bad gov't intervention, but rather, (hold on, this is a shocker), the rising costs of providing medical care. Whoop there it is!

The rising costs are, in part, the fault of government. For example, it costs billions to get a new drug to patients due to FDA regulations.

[logroller]

The rising costs are, in part, the fault of government. For example, it costs billions to get a new drug to patients due to FDA regulations.


Billions...:link:

[Missileman]

Billions...:link:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Some of these dunderheads will never understand the implications until they start getting taxed FOR NOT BUYING a hybrid car, any or all new green tech appliances , the government mandated whatever, etc.!
Until then they will just blindly wallow in their false security while happily tossing away more personal freedoms.
And helping socialism grow even faster here in America.
Never met yet a crack shot with a rifle that was blind but these people would have one believing that they are just that brilliantly talented and RIGHT!-:laugh2:-Tyr

[logroller]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/


There are lots of expenses here. A single clinical trial can cost $100 million at the high end, and the combined cost of manufacturing and clinical testing for some drugs has added up to $1 billion. But the main expense is failure.

thats somehow the fault of government regulations? Drug failure?

[Missileman]

thats somehow the fault of government regulations? Drug failure?

Of course not.

I should have also added the "in part" to the second half of my post about the FDA.

[revelarts]

this whole conversation kinda depresses me.

those that are somewhat defending this as the law therefore we've got to take it in the ear again, just make the best of it.
And other conversations over in the constitution thread and else where some say if the gov't does it's constitutional.

As i was thinking of this today the shawshank redemption came to mind this scene...

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TsiFanovOSI?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TsiFanovOSI?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

to many people in America have been institutionalized.
the 1st Americans distrusted gov't
later Americans got used to it
now many depend on it and will almost kill their neighbors to keep the system running and build it powers.

to many Brooks's not enough Andy's

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gmc10062420120629120100.jpg