Obama warns on healthcare ruling:Barack Obama suggested that any decision by the US Supreme Court to overturn his landmark healthcare law would send the country “backwards” and that Americans did not want to “re-fight” the battle over healthcare. Mr. President, we have not yet begun to fight.
This post was last modified on June 26, 2012
View Comments (22)
And I think we all know it's pretty damn safe bet that the main stream media, liberal bloggers and other crazies will cry "legistalting from the bench" or "Judicial overreach" when it gets struck down.
One of the three branches of government is about to shove its boot up the ass of another. Pull out a copy of the US Constitution, Mr President, and read it for the first time.
Two staffers I've always coveted for this president: a cobbler and a proctologist.
What in the Hell legislation is the Amateur-In-Chief talking about??? That piece of crap, nobody wanted, that was deemed passed in the House and then rammed down our throats and packed up our backsides? Is that the legislation he's whining about?? That's not legislation--that's FIAT, (not the car), snark added! This POS he and all his minion are getting all lathered up about isn't even Constitutionally legal, won't pass the smell test and if it does, won't be enforceable...not if we have anything to say about it!!! It's just about time to go Postal!
Going backwards? I guess they opted to use backwards instead of racist to label the Scotus? How refreshing.
Obama warns? Blow it out your ass Mr. President, don't warn me, threaten me, or tell me how its gonna be...You have been lying for over three years, Just get the f*ck out of the white house and take wookie one with you, and take that stupid white guy who keeps sticking his foot in his mouth too...
Warn ME? Let me tell you something Mr "president" the true patriots of this country don't take kindly to tyrants or traiters. As president Andrew Jackson once said "the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." So take you warning and shove it up the hole from which you talk out of most!
Here is the problem, this POS of legislation was passed without anyone really being able to see what in the hell was in it. Now that the SCOTUS has the bill and has taken it apart, barry is going to look bad when his prize legislation falls by the way side. Then he will only be able to claim he got bin laden and he didnt have the balls to give the green light for the killing.
As for the fight, I'm all in and am willing to fight again and again and again until barry becomes former President.
You know, actually... I read it. The entire thing. Front to back. A few days before the Senate vote, they had the bill posted at the senate.gov website, so I downloaded it and spent every waking hour through the weekend reading it. It still makes me laugh to see that video clip with that Democratic congressman saying that basically it's too hard for anyone but lawyers to understand. Mind-numbing? Yes. Alarming? Very much so. Too hard to understand? Not so much.
And we keep right on electing these geniuses.
Now, THAT'S dedication!
On MSNBC the other day, one of the talking asses,..er,..um,...heads, was saying, and actually showing the sections, that said that there was to be NO penalty for anyone refusing to purchase the required insurance, therefore eliminating any claim of individual mandate. Is that true?
Sorry this answer will probably be so long (Even for me! Eeep.) , it will qualify for a TL/DR reply....
Let me back up a second and lay out a timeline, first, before responding directly to your question.
If you remember, the Health Care Bill was going back and forth, with pretty much everybody in the country either cheering it on or decrying it. We had those "Town Hall" meetings, constant coverage in the press... it was everywhere. Then several things happened all right on top of one another. Scott Brown was elected. The Democrats went into panic mode. There were promises of "transparency" and the president even said something about C-SPAN coverage. Worried that they were on the verge of losing their sacred cow, the Democrats demanded a vote, setting an artificial deadline (the Christmas Eve vote), and then the bill was put up for public viewing on the Senate's site.
And if things weren't hinky enough, this is where they got really off kilter. Almost immediately, there were talks of death panels*. There were people insisting they were there and people insisting they weren't. There were a lot of people saying, "No way anyone can read that whole thing before the vote." (That's why I did. To prove you could, if it was important enough, or if, say, that's why the taxpayers are paying you a 6-figure salary.)
The bill disappeared off the Senate site without a word of explanation. It was up for a few days and then it was gone. Before the vote.
The bill that passed through the Senate was apparently almost 500 pages *longer* than the one that had been made available the week before the vote. Part of that had to be the stuff about student loans. I do not know about the rest.
What this means is, I cannot for certain say what was changed or edited in all cases. What I can tell you is, in answer to your particular question, yes, there was - at least then - a part that could somewhat be interpreted that way, BUT it was, IMHO, just another laughable attempt at sounding "reasonable" when it was no such thing. There was a part that said low-income people (who would qualify for Medicare/Medicaid) couldn't be penalized for not buying insurance. D'oh! Get that? We'll put you on government insurance paid for by someone else and then we won't penalize you for not buying insurance. Well, how considerate!
From what I understand, what has actually happened with the penalty/tax portions is a logic-bending "solution" that is one of the reasons I actually *don't* typically call Democrats stupid. Crafty, conniving, and wily, yes, but not stupid. The bill was amended from the bill I read to take out the penalties of fines and jail time for non-compliance. What they did instead was rewrite IRS tax laws to give the IRS the authority to deduct money from your taxes if you don't comply. This is probably what MSNBC was talking about. Now, if you already owe the IRS money and there's no return for them to withhold for this fine, you could refuse to pay and the IRS would have to decide whether or not to go after you. If, though, you are supposed to get something back, if you are in "non-compliance" with the health care law, then they can zing you. This is where the tax/not-a-tax arguments are coming into play.
(If anyone has a better understanding of this and can clarify it, please jump in.)
*About those death panels:
When they were first brought up, the Democrats vehemently denied their existence. They even quoted parts of the bill to "prove" they weren't there. Clever, clever Democrats. It was the equivalent to standing in a wide field and pointing at the ground and saying, "See? There are no weeds here!" while ignoring the patch of clovers five feet away.
In a portion of the bill nowhere near what the Democrats were busily drawing everyone's attention to was a small, half-page section that discussed "exploring the possibility of creating community agencies" that would, among other things, be tasked with "reducing unnecessary return visits to hospitals." On the surface, that seems reasonable enough. After all, we don't want a system that is completely abused, right? The problem is, these agencies would be given "financial incentives" to reduce those return visits. In other words, they'd be making money to keep people out of hospitals. If someone went to the hospital and went home, but really felt something was wrong and that he needed to return, his community agency could decide it was "unnecessary" and deny him the visit. I'm sure we'd all like to believe that even with a "financial incentive" to keep people out, the agencies would never take such risks with people's lives, but then, we'd also probably all like to believe that the next time someone rings our doorbells, it will be Publisher's Clearing House holding a giant check.
The trigger is there, buried in that little section. All it will take is the Health and Human Services Secretary to pull it and ladies and gentlemen, we will have the beginnings of our death panels.
Oh, good glory! That is LONG. I should really just go start my own blog. >.< Sorry!
Nice recap. Good stuff.
Thanks. I really am sorry about the length. I think I'm still boiling mad about the whole thing so it's hard for me to just shut up about it already.
Don't apologize about the length. You write well, and you make good points.
For me, the tl;dr only comes into play when the writing reveals that the writer is not thinking. The people on this site, with a few notable exceptions (with avatars resembling rather effeminate elves) are capable of reading and understanding much more complex concepts than "corporations are bad, because that is what I was told."
Good work, young lady. You should be proud of what you write.
Is that an elf, then? I couldn't quite tell, but I didn't really want to ask Gollum. I was afraid maybe he'd drawn it himself and I didn't have the heart to tell him I couldn't really figure out just what it was supposed to be.
Oh, and thanks. :)
Please, Jenn, no apologies. I appreciate having someone around who has gone to such lengths to educate themselves. I read some sections, so I could argue against the bill with my union buddies, but nowhere near the effort you've put out. Thank you.
Well, thank you. Probably THIS is what really will get me into that Geek Girl Hall of Fame. I go to the source on *everything* instead of letting the media or politicians (of all people!) tell me what to think.
If it is from MSNBC it may have been edited. So......NO
Dean posted a funny by Dennis Miller on Facebook. Paraphrasing but the gist is that he prefers that the gods who walk amongst us not be so whiny. Pretty witty, IMO.
Obama has come down to us with great wrath, knowing he has but a short time (Revelation 12:12).
Ask king george about how Americans fight for their freedom