How dare they. Appeals court questions Obama's comments.

[Jhhnn]

He's angry that his pet law is threatened, and now he's lashing out in frustration. The only "unprecedented" thing here is his slander of one of our three distinct branches of government. There's no defending him on this.

Poor form Obama, poor form...

Duely blundered from my thunderdolt

Somebody else who never read the original remarks, relying instead on the Faux punditocracy to interpret for them.

Quote the slander.

 

[fskimospy]

He's angry that his pet law is threatened, and now he's lashing out in frustration. The only "unprecedented" thing here is his slander of one of our three distinct branches of government. There's no defending him on this.

Poor form Obama, poor form...

Duely blundered from my thunderdolt

1.) Do you even realize that the extreme right has spent the last several decades attacking the courts to a far, far harsher degree than anything Obama has ever said? How on earth are Obama's statements 'unprecedented'?

If Obama had said something half as bad as what the ultra right says on a regular basis, he would be attacked as the next coming of Hitler.

2.) Obama didn't slander them.

 

[Fern]

You seem confused. If the government wants to spend a lot and put a man on the moon, ok. But I guess if they use 'credits' to get private business to do it, you object.

I'm not confused at all. However, you seem to be since NASA has nothing to do with the govt's Constitutional power of taxation. If the govt had to defend it's power to create and fund NASA it certainly wouldn't rely upon it's power to tax.

As regards credits or tax benefits to certain industries, I accept that not everyone will approve of them all; myself included.

However since I've been a tax professional Congress has expanded upon such benefits to create programs that are nothing more than disguised social welfare programs using the tax system to administer them. They did this because "tax breaks" sound better politically than "welfare" and it's abuse for political expediency purposes.

Ideally, a tax system should be free from such distortions (including business incentives) and used for it's intended purpose: Raise revenue for the govt.

Fern

 

[Fern]

What power does the ICC grant to regulate commerce then if not the power to levy benefits/penalties to specifically encourage/discourage certain transactions?
-snip-

IMO it was designed to do neither.

Seems to me the original problem it addressed was the free flow of goods across state lines (Hence, the name interstate commerce).

The original problem was states were charging duties on goods that crossed their borders and headed to other states. Not a real problem if you lived in the state that had the port those goods arrived at. You'd pay the duty/fee only once when your goods arrived at that port.

However, if you were several states away from that port, your goods got hit with that duty/fee numerous times. This made such goods very expensive and was seen as damaging to the commerce of shipping goods to customers in other states or countries.

Now since then the ICC has been expanded in all manner of sorts. But even so, I'm unaware of it's use to promote "certain transactions". Perhaps some one else is.

Fern

 

[Fern]

1.) Do you even realize that the extreme right has spent the last several decades attacking the courts to a far, far harsher degree than anything Obama has ever said? How on earth are Obama's statements 'unprecedented'?

If Obama had said something half as bad as what the ultra right says on a regular basis, he would be attacked as the next coming of Hitler.

2.) Obama didn't slander them.

Who on the right?

If it's Bush please quote it. If it's not it's irrelevant.

Did Obama "slander" them? I guess it depends on your definition of "slander". He certainly insulted them etc. If you want to fall back on the technical legal definition of "slander", go ahead, but slander in common vernacular refers to insults.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Who on the right?

If it's Bush please quote it. If it's not it's irrelevant.

Did Obama "slander" them? I guess it depends on your definition of "slander". He certainly insulted them etc. If you want to fall back on the technical legal definition of "slander", go ahead, but slander in common vernacular refers to insults.

Fern

First it wouldn't be irrelevant, and second it's not just Bush. It's basically every prominent Republican in and out of office for 30 years.

For some examples here's Bush in 2007:

For the judiciary, resisting this temptation is particularly important, because it's the only branch that is unelected and whose officers serve for life. Unfortunately, some judges give in to temptation and make law instead of interpreting. Such judicial lawlessness is a threat to our democracy -- and it needs to stop.

That is a far larger attack than what Obama said.

Bush in 2004:

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

Satisfied? If not, please quote the exact passage from Obama's statement that you believe is unprecedented for a President to utter.

 

[Fern]

First it wouldn't be irrelevant, and second it's not just Bush. It's basically every prominent Republican in and out of office for 30 years.

The President is held to a higher standard than say, Rush Limbaugh or even a House member. I would expect a Senator to comport him/herself to a high standard also. So, yeah, it's irrelevant unless it's Bush (or some other modern President.)

For some examples here's Bush in 2007:


That is a far larger attack than what Obama said.

Bush in 2004:


Satisfied? If not, please quote the exact passage from Obama's statement that you believe is unprecedented for a President to utter.

Those were remarks directed at the entire judiciary, not leveled squarely at SCOTUS like Obama did. Hence, not similar.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

The President is held to a higher standard than say, Rush Limbaugh or even a House member. I would expect a Senator to comport him/herself to a high standard also. So, yeah, it's irrelevant unless it's Bush (or some other modern President.)

There are tons of high ranking Republicans who have done just the same. Tom DeLay springs to mind, Rick Santorum, Jim DeMint, etc, etc. I could quote you high ranking Republicans all day.

Those were remarks directed at the entire judiciary, not leveled squarely at SCOTUS like Obama did. Hence, not similar.

Fern

Such a distinction is absurd and you know it. That you could honestly believe it is permissible or somehow not similar for a President to issue far greater insults at all federal judges, SCOTUS included, but that it would be somehow different to criticize the SCOTUS alone. This strains credulity. Like, seriously strains credulity.

On what earthly basis would you consider such a distinction relevant? Am I seriously understanding your position to be that if Obama had said in reference to the health care case that he considers 'lawless judges a threat to our democracy', that such a statement would have been okay because it attacked all judges? Like.... really?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There are tons of high ranking Republicans who have done just the same. Tom DeLay springs to mind, Rick Santorum, Jim DeMint, etc, etc. I could quote you high ranking Republicans all day.



Such a distinction is absurd and you know it. That you could honestly believe it is permissible or somehow not similar for a President to issue far greater insults at all federal judges, SCOTUS included, but that it would be somehow different to criticize the SCOTUS alone. This strains credulity. Like, seriously strains credulity.

On what earthly basis would you consider such a distinction relevant? Am I seriously understanding your position to be that if Obama had said in reference to the health care case that he considers 'lawless judges a threat to our democracy', that such a statement would have been okay because it attacked all judges? Like.... really?

Obama clearly meant a distinction when he purposefully used the judicially irrelevant comment about "unelected"? That was calculated and if you don't see that then you don't want to.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

On what earthly basis would you consider such a distinction relevant? Am I seriously understanding your position to be that if Obama had said in reference to the health care case that he considers 'lawless judges a threat to our democracy', that such a statement would have been okay because it attacked all judges? Like.... really?

If he said it in reference to the HC case it would obviously point directly at the SCOTUS (assuming you mean saying at this time.)

I can't be bothered to look right now, but I feel pretty sure Obama has made remarks about the judiciary before.

To my knowledge the only two that are garnering such criticism are those leveled squarely at the the SCOTUS. The one being during the SOTU address, and the current one.

Fern

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

IMO it was designed to do neither.
Fern

If not that clearly changed with Gonzales v. Raich.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm contending that if hospitals are forced by the government to treat people who cannot pay the government is obligated to reimburse them.

And the govt does, indirectly, in the setting of permissible charges to medicaid & medicare patients. It's a form of transfer pricing.

 

[theeedude]

Obama clearly meant a distinction when he purposefully used the judicially irrelevant comment about "unelected"? That was calculated and if you don't see that then you don't want to.

They are unelected. And it's absolutely relevant to judicial restraint.

 

[Craig234]

The judges are unelected for a reason, so they can put the law ahead of any political considerations - what's poisonous is when an organziation breeds judges to be ideologically driven for an agenda more than the law, and partners with the political process to get those judges appointed and corrupt the system.

which is one reason the Federalist Society is so poisonous because that's exactly who they are - and had great power under the Bush administration, why we have radicals.

 

[theeedude]

The court is vulnerable to criticism after Citizens United. Obama can run against an activist court and win.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The court is vulnerable to criticism after Citizens United. Obama can run against an activist court and win.

Not about the mandate. There are more people against than support it. It's highly unpopular. Some of the ideas embodied in legislation will be supported by the majority, but this is a huge sweeping bill and if you want anything you have to swallow the whole thing. That was no doubt by design.

 

[theeedude]

Not about the mandate. There are more people against than support it. It's highly unpopular. Some of the ideas embodied in legislation will be supported by the majority, but this is a huge sweeping bill and if you want anything you have to swallow the whole thing. That was no doubt by design.

Preexisting conditions discrimination can not be eliminated without the mandate. Obama can blame the court for leaving sick people to fend for themselves.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And the govt does, indirectly, in the setting of permissible charges to medicaid & medicare patients. It's a form of transfer pricing.

And how much of payments from those programs compensate real expenses?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Preexisting conditions discrimination can not be eliminated without the mandate. Obama can blame the court for leaving sick people to fend for themselves.

According to you and obama. There was no widespread appeal for non partisan solutions. We'll never really know what we might have done, and that no doubt was deliberate. The worst thing that could have come from this is that someone not party affiliated would find a better solution.

 

[Jhhnn]

Preexisting conditions discrimination can not be eliminated without the mandate. Obama can blame the court for leaving sick people to fend for themselves.

This. There's a price for everything, and the price of covering pre-existing conditions is the mandate.

That aspect of the ACA is highly desirable & wildly popular. Thinking that such coverage can be achieved another way short of single payer is delusional.

A huge # of Americans will end up with some sort of pre-existing condition prior to entering the medicare system, the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow. Given the churn of modern employment, the expense of cobra, and increasing length of unemployment, more and more Americans will simply be unable to have meaningful coverage, even though they may well have paid into the system for 30 years or more. Insurance will cover everything except what's wrong with you...

Insurance companies don't ask what you've ever done for them, but rather what you've done for them lately. The fact that they've made money off you for decades is... irrelevant. It's just another aspect of Conservatopia- "I got mine, screw you."

 

[Jhhnn]

And how much of payments from those programs compensate real expenses?

I dunno- nor do you. I do know that hospitals are, in general, highly profitable, even if the book keeping says otherwise, and part of that comes from billing the govt. Private insurance beats down charges & bargains mercilessly while the govt mostly just pays up according to the schedule of charges.

 

[theeedude]

According to you and obama. There was no widespread appeal for non partisan solutions. We'll never really know what we might have done, and that no doubt was deliberate. The worst thing that could have come from this is that someone not party affiliated would find a better solution.

There is no solution, politics aside, to pre-existing condition exclusions in the private insurance system, without individual mandate. Republicans had the whole span between HillaryCare and ObamaCare to come up with one, and they came up with individual mandate. Every other developed country either has universal single payer or individual mandate or both. If SCOTUS removes the individual mandate, the solutions will have to come from the government offering insurance to those people directly. So options for Republicans will be either do nothing and get blamed, along with the court, for doing nothing, or start down the road to universal single payer. Once you start offering guaranteed government coverage for pre-existing conditions, people will drop their private insurance and just get on the government plan once they get sick.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is no solution, politics aside, to pre-existing condition exclusions in the private insurance system, without individual mandate. Republicans had the whole span between HillaryCare and ObamaCare to come up with one, and they came up with individual mandate. Every other developed country either has universal single payer or individual mandate or both. If SCOTUS removes the individual mandate, the solutions will have to come from the government offering insurance to those people directly. So options for Republicans will be either do nothing and get blamed, along with the court, for doing nothing, or start down the road to universal single payer. Once you start offering guaranteed government coverage for pre-existing conditions, people will drop their private insurance and just get on the government plan once they get sick.

Again you keep saying that. There could be tax breaks for premiums, subsidies, typical rewards. There could be legal provisions so that practitioners don't have to think "If I don't do every test I'm asking to be sued". A standardized system where providers could securely access medical records of anyone anywhere. There's a whole host of things which can be done. Seriously, how many experts were consulted and given resources to come up with alternatives outside of political expediency? Task forces everywhere, but for this? This was treated as any ordinary project although the complexity of the task is such that no one in Congress can have a full grasp of the issues.

This was poorly done by design, and don't tell me about Republicans. They couldn't find their way out of a paper bag open at both ends either. The insistence that amateurs who cannot possibly devote time and energy to this task if for no other reason than other items on the agenda is completely illogical. The only purpose this serves is political control.

 

[theeedude]

Again you keep saying that. There could be tax breaks for premiums, subsidies, typical rewards. There could be legal provisions so that practitioners don't have to think "If I don't do every test I'm asking to be sued". A standardized system where providers could securely access medical records of anyone anywhere. There's a whole host of things which can be done. Seriously, how many experts were consulted and given resources to come up with alternatives outside of political expediency? Task forces everywhere, but for this? This was treated as any ordinary project although the complexity of the task is such that no one in Congress can have a full grasp of the issues.

This was poorly done by design, and don't tell me about Republicans. They couldn't find their way out of a paper bag open at both ends either. The insistence that amateurs who cannot possibly devote time and energy to this task if for no other reason than other items on the agenda is completely illogical. The only purpose this serves is political control.

We've been hearing empty promises from people opposing actual reform, but nothing has been accomplished. Republicans had 15 years between HillaryCare and ObamaCare to do something, they punted. But every time Democrats try to do something, we hear empty promises about how private sector, or tort reform, or technology is going to take care of things, and after those promises are used to block real reform, nothing happens.
When it was HillaryCare, opponents said, let's do individual mandate instead, once HillaryCare was defeated, these people did nothing, then Obama came over and said, you know that individual mandate you proposed, it's better than nothing, let's do that. Now they are saying that's not it, let's do tort reform, even though it's been tried in Texas and accomplished nothing. Those who block Obamacare need to be held politically accountable for the consequences. If they don't do anything to fix the problem, but block someone else from trying, they are the problem.

 

[Jhhnn]

We've been hearing empty promises from people opposing actual reform, but nothing has been accomplished. Republicans had 15 years between HillaryCare and ObamaCare to do something, they punted. But every time Democrats try to do something, we hear empty promises about how private sector, or tort reform, or technology is going to take care of things, and after those promises are used to block real reform, nothing happens.
When it was HillaryCare, opponents said, let's do individual mandate instead, once HillaryCare was defeated, these people did nothing, then Obama came over and said, you know that individual mandate you proposed, it's better than nothing, let's do that. Now they are saying that's not it, let's do tort reform, even though it's been tried in Texas and accomplished nothing. Those who block Obamacare need to be held politically accountable for the consequences. If they don't do anything to fix the problem, but block someone else from trying, they are the problem.

Amen. They already have health insurance, so they don't see a problem, and don't care anyway, because it's somebody else's problem-

"I got mine. Screw you."

Repubs should adopt it as their motto.