arma virumque cano (et alia)
Well, it was only 5-4 and according to Dog Gone if it is only 5-4 and there are people that object then the decision is wrong, and shouldn't stand.Seriously though, I really didn't think the commerce clause supported it and it doesn't according to Roberts. Interesting that they found that it was sound due to Congress's power to tax the individual.Instead of the calls to repeal it, I think we should just work on repealing the 16th amendment. That will get it too and solve all kinds of other problems as well. :)
Almost, but not quite correct FWM.I agree with you that the split in majority is a concern, and that it does not reflect AS well on the decision as a larger majority, or better, a unanimous decision would.However, THAT is not the only factor here; what makes a decision wrong is not the numbers alone, but the reasoning and the conformity to recognized principles of jurisprudence. There is nothing in this decision that I've seen so far, that argues it is a flawed ruling on the order of those flaws in Heller.The people objecting to this decision tend not to be particularly well respected, and UNLIKE the Heller decision, the criticism for this decision is ENTIRELY political in nature. Had Romney been president and signed this legislation if it were passed entirely by Republicans, those same individuals who are objecting NOW would have no objection to the legislation.That argues that the actual objections are specious and invalid and insincere, and therefore, UNLIKE the Heller objections should not carry any weight or significance.It is an unfortunate thing that Justices Scalito (they act as a single hybrid entity) and Clarence Thomas are such poor justices, but they taint pretty much everything they touch in decisions.They will be our 21st century Dredd Scott justices in the longer view of history.
Interesting also that the Court said the government cannot force the States to participate in the expanded Medicaid system by withholding current Medicaid funding. So this turns into a large tax on the poor that are currently without insurance. Way to go Obama and the Democrats!
So the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, and the rest of the corporatist cheerleaders got exactly what they wanted (just like when prescription drug benefit was passed under W). As for the regular people, look for healthcare costs to rise, rationing and waiting periods, and the quality of healthcare to go down with the most qualified people leaving the field and the best and brightest discouraged from even entering it.Don't people see what the scam here is? Both parties are bought and paid for by the SAME special interests. Voting for one party over another isn't going to change shit because both parties at this point are one in the same. So the first black president (and noted Constitutional Scholar *rolls eyes*) gets voted into office, big f'n deal. The whole thing is a sham, Barry is no different than W, who was no different than Clinton, who was no different than Bush, Reagan or Carter, etc. It's like watching Charlie Brown run to kick the football and expecting Lucy to NOT pull it away at the last second. Everyone know she's going to pull that thing except him. That would make Charlie Brown anyone who thinks that voting for one party over another makes a bit of difference.Whatevs. I'm going back to Latvia.
I agree with you that there are similarities gRandiose, but I disagree that they are to the same degree.I'm seeing far more push back AGAINST getting that kind of special interest money out of buying our government on the right. Are you TOTALLY unfamiliar with ALEC, for an example. Both parties have corruption, but the right has FAR FAR more corruption, including the precious tea party idiots.As to your 'rolling your eyes', YES, Obama IS a constitutional scholar thank you, and a helluva lot smarter and better educated and less of a post-truth president than those who the right runs as candidates -- like McCain, or the airhead idiot Palin. Do you really want to compare the candidates? Because the right does poorly consistently in the comparison. I can see why you would want to conflate Clinton and Obama, both academically distinguished, from Dubya, the original village idiot, or many of the right's other candidates who are similarly educationally challenged.Latvia, gRandiose? Where they have a single payer universal health system riddled by corruption?From Wikipedia:Health The Latvian healthcare system is a universal program, largely funded through government taxation. It is among the lowest-ranked healthcare systems in Europe, due to excessive waiting times for treatment, insufficient access to the latest medicines, and other factors. There were 59 hospitals in Latvia in 2009, down from 94 in 2007, and 121 in 2006. The average life expectancy at birth is 72.7 years, second lowest in the European Union. Corruption is relatively widespread in the Latvian healthcare system, though the situation has improved since the early 1990s. It has been noted that an environment conducive to corruption has been promulgated by low salaries and poorly implemented systemic reforms. This also results in brain drain, mostly to Western EU nations. As of 2009, there were approximately 8,600 inhabitants of Latvia living with HIV/AIDS, accounting for a .7% adult HIV prevalence rate. There were 32,376 (1.44%) individual instances of clinically reported alcoholism in Latvia in 2008, as well as cases of addictions to other substances. The annual number of births per 1,000 adolescent women aged 15 to 19 has declined from 49.9 in 1990 to 17.9 in 2007. In 2005, Latvia had a suicide rate of 24.5 per 100,000 inhabitants (down from 40.7 in 1995), the 7th highest in the world.But hey --- that's still probably better than health care here, where we are so far down the list of countries in terms of health care results per $ expended, and have a much higher percentage of people NOT receiving any health care at all.Bye bye! and don't let the virtual door hit you on your tush on the way back to the superior 'nanny state' of europe, where they continue to demonstrate that the most successful societies AND the most successful economies are mixed, not pure socialism, not pure laissez-faire captialism.HISTORY shows us that people CAN and DO make a difference. That's why women vote, now have contraception, and why we no longer have slavery in the world EITHER. You are cherrypicking your history, past and present; it is neither accurate, nor honest.
You are missing my point dog gone - it doesn't matter if you put the president from central casting in office. The truth is he is not going to deviate from the script handed to him. Reagan tried to early on in his administration but came around after he got shot. JFK probably could have but he was dealt with also.The fact is, if voting for one party over another actually changed things it would be illegal. Sure, there may be minor points of disagreement in the W/Romney - Clinton/Obama political spectrum of "acceptable" debate. But they are distinctions without differences. We have traded in one crime family in for a different one. Part of the fraud that exists is letting people think one mafia is better than another. They are still the mafia. Well, I shouldn't say that, the real mafia actually offers services that people want.As for Latvia, I figured you'd look it up. You proved my point about what happens when government gets involved in healthcare. It's corrupt, it's inefficient, and the quality of care is crap. And no, the healthcare they have there is not better than what is available here but the way it's going down hill it won't take long for it to drop down.As a side note, do you honestly believe that the big business interests like insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies are really against Obamacare?
And you ignore that even in Latvia it has improved, and that it was corrupt before because of low wages, essentially underfunding. However, perspend 84.85% less money on health care spend 84.85% less money on health carePer capita public and private health expenditures combined in Latvia are $1,018 USD while The United States spends $6,719 USDThis entry contains the per capita public and private health expenditure at purchase power parity using US Dollars. This figure combines government, personal, and employer spending on health careSource: World Health Organization http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/US/LVDo I honestly believe that big busienss interests are against Obamacare?Did you LOOK at the money they spent to try to stop it? Given that thsi restricts the rates at which they were raising premiums, they certainly are against many parts of it, yes. As to big pharm, for example, the medicare/medicaid 'doughnut hole' is now being closed.
You are missing the big picture - the fact is, the biggest lobbying group representing health insurance companies wrote briefs to the SCOTUS in favor of Obamacare. Sure, the narrative portrayed in the media of Barry taking on the big bad medical industrial complex was bought hook, line, and sinker by his cheerleaders. And the companies played along knowing that in the end being demonized is a small price to pay compared to eliminating smaller competitors in the marketplace by government decree and getting lucrative government subsidies in the process.So congratulations to everyone who claims they want to help the poor and middle class, is against big business interests influencing government to their benefit, and yet supports Obamacare. You got played for fools.
No GRANDYose, I did not.YOU may have, because you seem to be missing an awful lot of information. Do you have anything resembling facts to support your contention that the Obama administration received significant health insurance lobby support? Try this article on for size, for a more factual context :http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/us/politics/lobby-groups-blanket-supreme-court-on-obama-health-care-plan.html?pagewanted=allThe U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has helped lead opposition to the health care law, has been hosting moot court sessions to prepare lawyers involved in the case. Advocates on all sides of the issues, including Tea Party leaders who are against the law and health care professionals who favor it, are planning rallies. Many groups, like the American Constitution Society, liberal backers of the law and of Congress’s power to regulate commerce, are setting up war rooms and daily briefings on the Supreme Court steps. In all, groups involved in the debate have spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two years to steer the political and legal debate. And a record number of organizations — 136 so far — have filed amicus curiae or “friend of the court” briefs, densely packed with historical citations and legal arguments, to urge the court to either strike down or uphold the law. “Whenever you see a blockbuster case, we see the different groups coming out,” said Anthony Franze, a Washington lawyer who was a co-author of a study of such amicus briefs. “And this is the blockbuster of blockbusters.” or this one, from right after the ACA passed:http://www.iwatchnews.org/2010/02/24/2725/lobbyists-swarm-capitol-influence-health-reformMuch of that money went to fight the health reform battle, according to Center for Public Integrity data. Businesses and organizations that lobbied on health reform spent more than $1.2 billion on their overall lobby efforts. The exact amount they spent on health reform is difficult to quantify because most health care lobbyists also worked on other issues, and lobby disclosure rules do not require businesses to report how much they paid on each issue.From an industry perspective, it was money well spent. A close look at the health reform bills that passed the House and Senate show lobbyists were apparently effective at blocking provisions like a robust government-run insurance program, and blunting the effect of cost-cutting measures on health care companies.Randy - are YOU getting your factually inaccurate, fact averse information from the right wing media and/or blogosphere? Haven't you realized YET that those are not reliable sources of information on which to form an opinion --- and that we DELIGHT in skewering their lack of fact here?1. you have to support your claim about health insurance lobbyinsts filing an amicus brief2. you have to prove that it was not counterbalanced by an equal or greater number of amicus briefs filed AGAINST the ACA by lobbyists for the health insurance industry.3. I'd like to see you provide a copy of that amicus brief, because the right lies, and lies and lies and lies about the content of that sort of document. I'm not willing to take a third hand or tenth hand or hundreth hand assurance about the content of a supposed amicus brief.I suspect you are the fool here Randy,I worked for a long time in that industry, as did my blogging partner. I know it, intimately and thoroughly from the inside. What you suggest is total CRAP, it is beyond a fract, it is a full blown fuct not a fact. Your conspiracy theory is as stupid as the other conspiracy theories on the right... YOU UTTER AND COMPLETE FOOL.Seriously -- how can you believe this kind of garbage; do you EVER think critically or inform yourself with a significant quantity of factual and fact checked information first?Once again -- how dumb ARE YOU?
So, waddaya want GRANDYose? Single payer?Don't you LIKE capitalism?
"That's why women vote, now have contraception, and why we no longer have slavery in the world EITHER. You are cherrypicking your history, past and present; it is neither accurate, nor honest."Glad the world is free of slavery and all women get to vote everywhere. I guess if you leave out a large part of the African continent and the middle east you can make that claim.So are you cherrypicking now or do you really see the world as such a perfect, harmonious place?
The world is far freer of slavery, and it is at least nominally illegal where it still exists in pockets, because of people making the effort to change things.Compared to the extent to which slavery used to exist, it is effectively gone, and the small vestiges of it are under attack.Women vote in many, many parts of the world, and it is continuing to be the trend. In places like Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc. where they did not previously vote, they do now. Substantially, women are voting world wide and where they aren't, they are in the process of getting those rights, and it is only a matter of time.Look at the world trends - voting, contraception, banning slavery, stringently limiting guns...
Are we perfect? No. Have we made things better in many respects? HELL YES!Women’s rights around the world is an important indicator to understand global well-being.A major global women’s rights treaty was ratified by the majority of the world’s nations a few decades ago.http://www.globalissues.org/article/166/womens-rights