Kevin Schmidt, November 13 at 7:43 pm

See!

Oh, as for knowing something.

I know that most of your “facts” are bullshit. I have seen your crap on two forums now and it smells the same in both places.

little ardee again finds time to post his childish nonsense. Get back to me when you know something

mandinka, November 15 at 11:49 pm #

arduous adree as usual the great unwashed posts aging with 0 knowledge. Healthcare debate isn’t a hard topic it requires a little time and research. I’m sure there are other on this blog who can help you use a curious new search tool. Its called google, try it since I know you don’t read books and incapable of meaningful research at least you can get a little understanding of the issue. You sound like Pelosi and Reid on this topic not very literate

Kevin Schmidt, November 13 at 7:43 pm

See!

Republicans telling lies?!?!

Well, it’s all part of their new marketing strategy:

http://bit.ly/fxv3G

(satire)

arduous adree as usual the great unwashed posts aging with 0 knowledge. Healthcare debate isn’t a hard topic it requires a little time and research. I’m sure there are other on this blog who can help you use a curious new search tool. Its called google, try it since I know you don’t read books and incapable of meaningful research at least you can get a little understanding of the issue. You sound like Pelosi and Reid on this topic not very literate

mandinka ... whatever you are smoking, please share.  Your hallucinations are fascinating.

The US Supreme Court has always been very strong in protecting the rights of rich people to shaft everyone else.

Here’s the key thing to realize about the Democrats fake ‘health care reform’ proposals.

What they really do is lock in the fact that there will be no health care reform during Obama’s presidency.

Period.

Look close.  What this plan does first is to tell the big health insurance corps that they are completely safe from any reform until 2013.

All ‘reform’ aspects of this bill are delayed until 2013.  What this bill really does is to make sure there is no reform.

Of course, the Orwellian Democrats slap a big label on it calling it ‘health care reform’, and all the hack writers like Conason jump on the bandwagon trying to tell us how wonderful it is.

But, what this bill really does is say that there will be no health care reform under Obama.  Its all delayed and deferred out into the future.  And I’m betting it will be yanked away before then.  My guess is that in 2013 we’ll be told that the economy is just not in the shape to do this and that we can’t have it then either.

Its all bull!

Shenonymous—thanks for your answer.  You are the first person in several discursive venues which I visit to have one.  Since the present plan mandates that less wealthy people give their money to more wealthy people, I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will find it to be all right, but it still seems like something of a stretch, Constitutionally speaking.  I suppose the Court’s recent decision with respect to eminent domain is analogous—there, the courts decided it was all right for state and local governments to take property away from private persons, not for government purposes, but to benefit other private persons, i.e. real estate developers.  The Supreme Court is pretty soft on rights, except for good old keeping and bearing arms, and as you say the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.

Kevin Schmidt, November 13 at 7:43 pm

See!

dear schmitty learn some history before you post its obvious that your liberal leaning have clouded your reasoning ability.
Stole the 200 election Bush WON the most electoral votes and received more of the popular in 200 and 2004 than clinton did in either of his elections.
Barack didn’t steal the election he won it thru fraud, illegal aliens voting,the dead voting, those in prison and absentee ballots and campaign contributions from China and Saudi Arabia

It seems a cakewalk.  If the Constitution does not bar the requirement for the
citizens of this country to buy health insurance, then those who do not follow
any law passed that does require it, then fines may be imposed.  This fine
would be within the province of the sovereign states authority with federal
support to enforce it.

Research shows that the fundamental principle of the US constitutional system
for the last two hundred years has been that the Supreme Court is the final
authority on the Constitution, and the Constitution the court now recognizes
would permit Congress to adopt health care reform.

Most probably best argument in favor of the proposal’s constitutionality comes
from Mark Hall, a law professor at Wake Forest University. In a not too lengthy
paper prepared for Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute, he acknowledges
that the federal legislative government “has limited powers” and a law requiring
Americans to “transfer money to a private party for health or economic
purposes appears to be unprecedented” because laws tend to prohibit such
purchases rather than mandate them.

But after sifting through the arguments, he concludes that there are no legal
objections likely to be sustained by the current Supreme Court: “Either state or
federal government may require either individuals or employers to pay for
health insurance”  Reasoning:  “States have inherent power to promote health
and provide for the general welfare. The federal government has authority
under its power to regulate interstate commerce…”  He further argues that
these salient points of constitutional law appear to be solidly established and
are not likely to change based on the near-term composition of the Court.

There are precedent federal law supported state enforced taxes such as school
tax that is sanctioned by Congress which in turn is supported by the Supreme
Court.

There is no constitutional limitation with Congress requiring that individuals
purchase health care or pay a penalty. While there is many important issues to
debate over health care reform and how to achieve it, there is certain doubt
that the proposals would be constitutional.

The constitutional objection heard most often is that Congress lacks the
authority under Article I of the Constitution to levy such a fine. But that
mandate clearly falls within the scope of the authority of Congress to regulate
commerce among the states.

Night-Gaunt—the Federal government and the states can’t tell you where to travel, but they can restrict your freedom to travel using large, dangerous machines on state property.  Driving is not analogous to breathing, which seems to be the purview of the medical insurance legislation proposed.

Kevin Schmidt, November 13 at 7:43 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

mandinka,
Please stop lying!

******************************

You must understand that lying is all this poster has….You aint seen nothing yet!

Actually there is no place in the Constitution that tells us the gov’t can regulate how and where we travel either unless we are wards of the state and therefor without any more rights than a child to their parents.

Folktruther, November 12 at 3:09 pm:
‘Anarcissie, you can be arrested and fined for driving without car insurnace in California.  A cop told my wife when she got a traffic ticket that the fine for not having proof of insurancein the car, even if you have insurance, was currently $700. ...’

Sure, but that’s driving.  Driving on the public roads of the State of California in a motor vehicle is not a right; it’s a privilege extended to various persons of its choice by the State.  It can make up whatever rules it wants; a person who doesn’t like them can always refuse the deal (at least in theory). There is no Right to Drive enshrined in the Constitution.  The mandatory medical insurance business, on the other hand, is imposed on everyone no matter what they do.  I don’t think there is any Constitutional basis for such a thing, although no doubt someone will come up with something.

The Federal government could impose a tax, but I don’t see how they can Constitutionally take money from one private party and give it to another, except, of course, as the result of a civil or criminal penalty imposed by a court.

It will be interesting to see what they twist and how they twist it.

All this talk about deficits and the cost of health care, yada yada yada…. To staighten out this mess of a nation we need to (1) demilitarize, (2) revoke the charters of US-based transnational corporations on the grounds that they have violated the public trust and committed crimes against humanity, (3) outlaw and dissolve both major parties followed by investigation and prosecution of individual office holders for malfeasance and fraud and, (4) commit as a nation to one generation of ZPG with due warning to bible thumpers and their ilk of revocation of tax exemption should they protest too loudly.

cokids, no Clinton didn’t have anything to do with the surplus that was accomplished with a REPUBLICAN congress. Congress pass budgets and spending presidents can only sign or veto. But hey not many libs understand the constitution hence the deficit spending. W was doing fine until the dem’s took over congress and the deficit spending took off. Same clowns in office then are there now and they have learned that budgets don’t matter. Just recently the american citizens woke up to a $180,000 in new debt that will never be paid off and their children and yet unborn grand children will inherit

Mandinka,

I think that some of the deficit was created under the Bush administration. Didn’t Clinton leave us with a surplus? Hmmmmm?????????????????  A REPUB gets us into an unnecessary war; spends us into debt and bails out the banks and YOU blame Obama! Amazing!

No matter, there IS a deficit that must be repaid, so let’s concentrate on that and stop with the innacuracies!

Nice try all of the issue that the republicans will bring up are in fact accurate. The so called saving are paid for by eliminating tax breaks that have never been claimed ie black power credit.
This bill is a trillion dollar deficit creator in addition to the $8 trillion that barak and this congress have generated to date

Forewarned is forearmed? Get busy!!

In 2000, the Republicans learned a valuable lesson:  why fight the good fight when you can just steal the election?

Congress has the constitutional power to legislate constitutional amendments (to
preclude or undo supreme court decisions).

Quote: “And as the current debate has proved, they aren’t going to let honesty become an obstacle.”

Well put Mr. Conason.  Reading through the previous posts it appears “blathering” isn’t restricted to Fox News or right-wing radio.  Sad what some people will do for a dollar, I mean really…. if you’re going to sabotage The American People do it “honestly” at least.  Any traitor worth their salt would sell The American People down the toliet for NO LESS THAN MILLIONS…..right?

Who are these bottom-feeders?  It’s a disgusting thought, isn’t it?

Mandatory insurance is not health care reform. It’s political corruption.

To ardee, November 12 at 7:55 am

“Now if only liecatcher had access to the numbers of
voters that

Faux Snooze has perhaps his brilliant post might
sway the voter.”

Hey ardee:

Thanks for the compliment, but I believe it’s
impossible to convince

anyone to change his or her habits or lifestyle or
anything else

just using facts & logic. The fascist miscreants
controlling the

world know this & use fear (along with a steady
barage of

brainwashing from their think tanks) to get what they
want.

To truly understand exactly how World domination has
been

accomplished, reading Naomi Klein’s outstanding book:

SHOCK DOCTRINE has the information detailing how

shock & awe is used.

For folks with less time who want a quick truth fix,
with

a few clicks to DEMOCRACY NOW & a search for:

“Hoodwinked: Former Economic Hit Man John Perkins
Reveals

Why the World Financial Markets Imploded—and How to
Remake Them”,

you’ll have it.

At least give Conasson credit for disposing of most of the flagrant lies being promoted by those opposing this, or any, health care bill.

Anarcissie, you can be arrested and fined for driving without car insurnace in California.  A cop told my wife when she got a traffic ticket that the fine for not having proof of insurancein the car, even if you have insurance, was currently $700.

  The California state legislature has had a huge Dem majority for decades.  It renamed the freeway that goes past my house the Reagan freeway.  What’s that you were talking about, a Constitution?  heh, heh, heh

They will find a way. Especially after Obama, I think, wanted the fines raised against us. Watch there will be loopholes that the insurance co.s can wiggle out of actually covering those they are supposed to if any one of those bills pass. [We don’t even have a single one to scrutinize just yet.]

I must admit that in this case so far Obama has shown his brilliance and shrewdness in letting the ponderous Congress deal with this instead of mandating an expansion on Medicare which would have been simple. The other would have been to convert all the insurance companies into non-profits. [That would have been harder but the insurance companies wouldn’t have lost much.]

I am expecting the final bill to be poison anyway and if it takes us into a worse place then it needs to die. Women need to be covered and all this religious interference in our gov’t violates the 1st & 14 Amendments anyway so why aren’t the legal eagle minds on that? If it is evil it needs to be rejected. We don’t want to lose ground.

A trigger kills it, waiting till 2013 kills it, not fully paid for will let it die anyway. Get the picture?

Why aren’t we discussing the trillions spent on these wars in the same way?

I am curious as to how the Federal government can Constitutionally fine anyone for not buying insurance from a private company.  Does anyone know the answer to this?  I’ve asked elsewhere but have not yet received a coherent answer.

Conason scribbles: “and that none of them includes any provision to incarcerate citizens who lack insurance coverage”

If you don’t have insurance you face a fine. If you don’t pay the fine you deal with the IRS.

Ever hear of someone going to jail for not paying the IRS?

Conason is technically correct, just like his boss Bubba when he said he “didn’t have sex with that woman” because a bj wasn’t penetration. Legally.

I can’t take it anymore.

Now if only liecatcher had access to the numbers of voters that Faux Snooze has perhaps his brilliant post might sway the voter.

Testing Next Year’s Lies Today
Posted on Nov 11, 2009
By Joe Conason

Hey Joe Conason:

A good beginning.

Now let’s dig a little deeper.

Starting with: “Medical system is leading cause of
death and injury in US”,

responsible for over 700,000 iatrogenic deaths each
year (Google article),

and accepting that health can’t be purchased from a
pharmacy or hospital,

allows we the people to realize that this so-called healthcare
bill, like its predecessor,

is a cruel & deadly hoax. The system is designed to
treat & test for real or

created “diseases” rather than acknowledge that most
health problems

are caused by lifestyles which damage normal human
physiology. The

most obvious example is gluttony, obesity, diabetes,
blindness, amputations.

Or, alcoholism & liver failure; smoking & lung
destruction; high fat consumption,

clogged blood vessels, heart damage, stroke. All
preventable with moderate

consumption of healthy food prepared at home,
adequate rest, aerobic &

weight bearing exercises. Mainstream media, the lap
dog of MIPIC,

MEDICAL INSURANCE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX,

has brainwashed the masses into believing that it’s
not possible to exist

without consuming some type of powder pill potion or
procedure. Take

dental caries, e.g., completely preventable with
proper diet & oral hygiene.

All we see are ads for whitening & cosmetic
reconstructions. Gone are

ads for flossing & other prophylactic procedures.