Is The Fix In For Obamacare??

[ladylove]

hotair.com/archives/2011/05/18/oh-my-documents-reveal-that-kagan-may-have-helped-craft-legal-defense-of-obamacare/

When it does get to the Supreme Court, if Kagan doesn't recuse herself you'll know the outcome and an unconstitutional law will become law of the land! These are just incredible times! We stand as witnesses to the destruction of the American experiment, where people for a time actually governed themselves, and it will all be sacrificed for promises that simply can't be kept.

[ladylove]

Yeah unfortunately too many Americans think like you. *sigh*

[Deleted]

Kagan should not be allowed to rule on any Obamacare issue.

[ugonow]

How about Clarence Thomas?His wife has recieved money to lobby against Obamacare.

[Deleted]

I'd have to think about that, since it is his wife and not him. You guys let that Sherrod lady totally off the hook after it was PROVED that her husband is a black activist scamming the system in favor of black "farmers" that never did more than plant a tomato seed in a pot. Just saying..

[ladylove]

May 19, 2011 9:07:34 GMT -5 ugonow said:

How about Clarence Thomas?His wife has recieved money to lobby against Obamacare.

Surely you can see how that's different than the Kagan situation? Is it not possible that Thomas' wife could have a different view than her husband? Is it not possible that Thomas has no knowlege of the details of his wife's work?

Kagan worked on DEFENDING Obamcare from court challenges! Hell she shouldn't even have been confirmed with her views! Still there's no way she can be impartial!!

[ugonow]

Is it not possible that Thomas has no knowlege of the details of his wife's work?

I suppose it's possible,but seeing as though it is her lobby group,I sort of doubt it. She activly lobbied against Obamacare.

[Tennesseer]

May 19, 2011 9:21:32 GMT -5 @ladylove said:

May 19, 2011 9:07:34 GMT -5 ugonow said:

How about Clarence Thomas?His wife has recieved money to lobby against Obamacare.

Surely you can see how that's different than the Kagan situation? Is it not possible that Thomas' wife could have a different view than her husband? Is it not possible that Thomas has no knowlege of the details of his wife's work?

Kagan worked on DEFENDING Obamcare from court challenges! Hell she shouldn't even have been confirmed with her views! Still there's no way she can be impartial!!

Pillow talk.

Clarence Thomas’s Wife Asks Anita Hill for Apology

WASHINGTON — Nearly 20 years after Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Justice Thomas’s wife has called Ms. Hill, seeking an apology.

www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20thomas.html

Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, admitted recently that her decision to call Anita Hill, the woman who had brought forth sexual harassment charges against her husband during his confirmation hearings, was a "mistake."

In an interview with the Daily Caller, Thomas said that making contact with Hill "was probably a mistake on my part." She also told the website that her recent decision to step down from her leadership role at Tea Party-linked conservative advocacy group Liberty Central had nothing to do with the admitted indiscretion.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/06/virginia-thomas-anita-hill-call_n_792532.html]

Virginia Thomas is a loose cannon.

[ugonow]

There was an uproar over a memo by her calling for the repeal of Obamacare that was on the internet.Suppose he didn't hear about that along with her lobby group?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

We should not be relying on the courts. REPEAL is and will remain THE issue until the mission is complete. Republicans that do not get this should be ejected in primary challenges. IF we do not stop this, the last best hope for individual liberty on earth, and in al of human history will have been extinguished.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

YES. It is THAT big of an issue.

[fairlycrazy23]

If the mandate is ruled constitutional, that will put the final nail in the coffin of federalism.

[ladylove]

So they talk? Does that mean they have the same opinions? I doubt Clarence was aware of her decision to call Hill or that he agreed it was a good idea. Do you? In any case the fact that are married doesn't mean Thomas can't be fair even knowing what his wife was working on. Compare that to Kagan who worked for Obama, worked on the strategy for defending Obamacare, was appointed to the court by Obama, and whose views on the powers of congress under the commerce clause are questionable at best!

[ugonow]

"Under federal law, a judge must recuse himself should there be an appearance of impartiality, if a conflict might reasonably arise, or if there is an actual conflict of interest. The law also specifically states that a conflict of interest exists when a judge's spouse has a financial interest in the subject of the proceeding, its outcome, or one of the parties.

Ginny Thomas has proven financial ties to the anti-Obamacare movement. Between 2002 and 2007, the letter explains that she received $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, a strong opponent of the health care reform law. The Democrats also point to the fact that she advertises herself as a lobbyist to people who "want to overturn health care reform," notes The Huffington Post. On this basis alone, there is a strong argument that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself."

blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2011/02/clarence-thomas-too-biased-to-hear-obamacare.html

[bubblyandblue]

I am for a single payor system of health care. I don't think it is socialist if a vote comes forward in favor of it. Privitazation of many programs is a mistake when it runs contrary to the public good. In a country where arguments in favor of Privitazation of our common wealth and security is debated on spurious claims of socializm - it's dangerous. Why do we contract out private contracts in the pusuit of or national security without bidding. How can the corporate interest of shareholder value (profit) align with our interest in securing life, liberty and happiness. When did we become more interested in preserving shareholder value than preserving our constitution. When did we establish that the 'free market' to be more important, more just than the rule of law gong back to the magna carta. Explain how a free market paradigm is more effecient in providing basic services that a community agrees it wants when, a vig is always paid in a private 'free market economy'. The corporations that represent 'free markets' were wrought into existence by law and, yet the free market fundamentalists somehow argue that the corporations should be absolved from the constriants of law. I thought Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect that Corporations do not possess conscience - yet we give rights of humans to these same entities. Entities without conscience, oblivious to the public good, fictional entities that are devoid human rights - we give them more freedom than we give ourselves. 'Free Markets'? - does this mean freedom to live in a jungle - freedom to be subject to the survival of the fittest - freedom to the tyranny of moneyed interests - freedom to be subject to colusion, fraud, oligarchy, fascism, monarchy, special interests, monopoly and all the other enlightenments our 'free market' 'trickle down' economy has brought us again.
I find it amazing, the middle east is getting a taste of freedom that our forefathers brought us - and we now fear to stand up for ourselves because of this false rumor that the religion of 'free markets' is our salvation - despite it's obvious flaws. Despite it's divisions among it's acolytes. Despite the divisions it has created in our once - United States.
We no longer believe that our rules and laws can protect us - thats what I get out of the fact that shrill cries go out that we should not try terrorists in our court systems - are we afraid they are not good enough. Do we believe that our form of governance is no longer capable of sustaining us despite all the evidence to the contrary. Are we to afraid to wind down and prosecute the 'to big to fail' because our system could not handle it - really when did that happen? based on what evidence? - what are we truley scared of except ourselves? Do we wish to denigrate others, because they are not perfect. Define perfect and then honestly include yourself in that definition. I for one, can't fit into any definition of ideal, perfect or normal.

[ladylove]

Again I reject the claim. Working as a Lobbyists for a group opposed to Obamacare doesn't mean she has a financial interest in its defeat. I would argue she has an interest in continuing the debate rather than settling it one way or another.

[fairlycrazy23]

May 19, 2011 10:42:19 GMT -5 @bubblyandblue said:

I am for a single payor system of health care. I don't think it is socialist if a vote comes forward in favor of it. Privitazation of many programs is a mistake when it runs contrary to the public good. In a country where arguments in favor of Privitazation of our common wealth and security is debated on spurious claims of socializm - it's dangerous. Why do we contract out private contracts in the pusuit of or national security without bidding. How can the corporate interest of shareholder value (profit) align with our interest in securing life, liberty and happiness. When did we become more interested in preserving shareholder value than preserving our constitution. When did we establish that the 'free market' to be more important, more just than the rule of law gong back to the magna carta. Explain how a free market paradigm is more effecient in providing basic services that a community agrees it wants when, a vig is always paid in a private 'free market economy'. The corporations that represent 'free markets' were wrought into existence by law and, yet the free market fundamentalists somehow argue that the corporations should be absolved from the constriants of law. I thought Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect that Corporations do not possess conscience - yet we give rights of humans to these same entities. Entities without conscience, oblivious to the public good, fictional entities that are devoid human rights - we give them more freedom than we give ourselves. 'Free Markets'? - does this mean freedom to live in a jungle - freedom to be subject to the survival of the fittest - freedom to the tyranny of moneyed interests - freedom to be subject to colusion, fraud, oligarchy, fascism, monarchy, special interests, monopoly and all the other enlightenments our 'free market' 'trickle down' economy has brought us again.
I find it amazing, the middle east is getting a taste of freedom that our forefathers brought us - and we now fear to stand up for ourselves because of this false rumor that the religion of 'free markets' is our salvation - despite it's obvious flaws. Despite it's divisions among it's acolytes. Despite the divisions it has created in our once - United States.
We no longer believe that our rules and laws can protect us - thats what I get out of the fact that shrill cries go out that we should not try terrorists in our court systems - are we afraid they are not good enough. Do we believe that our form of governance is no longer capable of sustaining us despite all the evidence to the contrary. Are we to afraid to wind down and prosecute the 'to big to fail' because our system could not handle it - really when did that happen? based on what evidence? - what are we truley scared of except ourselves? Do we wish to denigrate others, because they are not perfect. Define perfect and then honestly include yourself in that definition. I for one, can't fit into any definition of ideal, perfect or normal.

If you really have any interest in preserving the United States Constitution you would not be for Obamacare except by enacting a Constitutional amendment to implement it, since there is clearly no enumerated power for the Federal Government to provide any such services.

[Deleted]

bubbly-- I find it hard to respond to you when you put out so many ideas at once. All valid debate points, but so many at once. As for healthcare-- what crazy says makes sense. Obamacare is unconstitutional. Kagan has already pretty much made her ruling, and has not even gotten the case yet. Take her out. She was obviously put in place for this reason.

[ladylove]

I am struck at the ignorance and arrogance of the left and their blindness to the foolishness of their ideas! Common good and common wealth are socialist code words used to justify socialist ideas. Free health care for everyone its for the common good! They shout! Who would be against it? Its our right because the constitution guarantees a right to life!

How pathetically twisted is that view? They actually believe government can enforce a right to LIVE! You have a right to life not a guarantee to live which means you don't have a right to free health care or free anything else that you wish to claim as part of the common wealth.

By the way who is it that decides what is the "common good"? I prefer to make my own decisions regarding what's good for me!

You know there was a time when people actually paid their doctors for care and if they had insurance filed a claim after the fact. Doctors occasionally forgave patients debts if they couldn't afford care. Then government got involved regulating insurance companies. They told them what to cover and how to charge. In other words they restricted freedom and impaired the free market driving up costs and now you want them to step in and take away more freedom to fix the problem they created and then convince us all its for the common good!! Don't do us any favors!!!

[EVT1]

May 19, 2011 9:44:04 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

IF we do not stop this, the last best hope for individual liberty on earth, and in al of human history will have been extinguished.

American citizens being able to see doctors and the end of insurance companies outright screwing people- yes it's the end of the world.

It won't be repealed, so you can forget about that one. Worst case the mandate gets tossed, the insurers start jacking rates and the public option makes a comeback. Americans wanted it, and would embrace single payer if they had the option. Whatever it takes, we have to have single payer or the whole system is doomed.

[fairlycrazy23]

May 19, 2011 16:43:53 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

May 19, 2011 9:44:04 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

IF we do not stop this, the last best hope for individual liberty on earth, and in al of human history will have been extinguished.

American citizens being able to see doctors and the end of insurance companies outright screwing people- yes it's the end of the world.

It won't be repealed, so you can forget about that one. Worst case the mandate gets tossed, the insurers start jacking rates and the public option makes a comeback. Americans wanted it, and would embrace single payer if they had the option. Whatever it takes, we have to have single payer or the whole system is doomed.

Then they need to go the route of Amendment, the Federal Government has not been given the power to do this by the States/People.

[EVT1]

Easy- put everyone on Medicare and outlaw private insurance for anything that Medicare covers. It has to happen eventually or Medicare is toast.

[cme1201]

May 19, 2011 17:39:39 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Easy- put everyone on Medicare and outlaw private insurance for anything that Medicare covers. It has to happen eventually or Medicare is toast.

And as soon as that actually happens the American dollar is toast. We can't afford those that are on it now, how are we going to afford it when everyone is on it?

(remember there are 20ish million who are not on it because they make to much for help and make to little to afford payments. even using the payments of those who pay premiums you are going to run into the social security like problem of too many pulling out vs. too few putting in.)

[marshabar1]

Obamacare is waivering its way out of existence. Shameful failure before it even starts.

Within the mumbo jumbo of reforms imposed on our health care system, HHS was given short-term implementation deadlines, which are past due. First, HHS missed the deadline mandated by the new law to create high-risk pools for those who could not obtain health insurance due to chronic illness. Next, it didn’t create the two task forces on improving access to health care in Alaska and breast cancer education on time. The list doesn’t end there.

Now, an Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality hasn’t published a report that was due by December 31. Additionally, the health care law called for HHS to launch a live Health Care Quality Web site by January 1, which is still not accessible. Punxsutawney Phil didn’t see his shadow last week, and the American people have yet to see HHS meet Obamacare’s set time frame.

In response to this past month’s neglected deadlines, along with a plethora of others over the past year, HHS spokeswoman Jessica Santillo emphasized to Politico the already “met” and “beaten” deadlines required by Obamacare, ignoring the department’s downfalls.

This Administration has failed in the beginning steps of implementing its signature legislation, and this does not speak well to the ability of HHS to fully implement the law by January 2014.

Obamacare was passed under the expansive notion that government can run Americans’ health care better than we can ourselves. Bureaucrats in Washington believes they have the power to get things done, but with unmet deadlines passing each month and promises to the American public broken, it seems to be the opposite.

blog.heritage.org/2011/02/14/side-effects-list-of-missed-obamacare-deadlines-grows/

[EVT1]

May 19, 2011 17:44:51 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

May 19, 2011 17:39:39 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Easy- put everyone on Medicare and outlaw private insurance for anything that Medicare covers. It has to happen eventually or Medicare is toast.

And as soon as that actually happens the American dollar is toast. We can't afford those that are on it now, how are we going to afford it when everyone is on it?

We can easily afford it- Medicare will shape up real fast when all of those private premium dollars are flowing into it. In fact, the premiums should drop as we are paying a lot more into our current system than would be required under a single payer system. It helps the budget, helps the citizens, what's not to like about it?

[jkapp]

May 19, 2011 17:39:39 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Easy- put everyone on Medicare and outlaw private insurance for anything that Medicare covers. It has to happen eventually or Medicare is toast.

Medicare is toast either way...it is already pissing money away to the tune of $60B a year (nearly $70B last year!), many doctors/hospitals refuse to accept it, and it cannot even afford to cover the fraction of citizens it covers even though it takes money from every working American.

Putting another 200 million people on it won't save it - and it certainly won't help the money that it pisses away in waste, fraud, and abuse every year. In fact, it will probably cause it to increase substantially!

Also, if there is only Medicare to choose from doesn't that make doctors public employees and hospitals (even private ones) public institutions? How is that preserving FREEDOM again???

Oh, that's right, its now about freedom, it's about the "greater good" and "welfare of all." Now read my signature below

[handyman2]

Obamacare for the most part has not even been funded yet. The simple solution is for congress not to fund Obamacare and settle the issue once and for all.

[cme1201]

May 19, 2011 18:43:52 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

May 19, 2011 17:44:51 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

And as soon as that actually happens the American dollar is toast. We can't afford those that are on it now, how are we going to afford it when everyone is on it?

We can easily afford it- Medicare will shape up real fast when all of those private premium dollars are flowing into it. In fact, the premiums should drop as we are paying a lot more into our current system than would be required under a single payer system. It helps the budget, helps the citizens, what's not to like about it?

What's not to like, let's see:

1. Political Slush Fund: we will be "paying" our premiums to the federal government. The money doesn't stay in a "lock box" so the money that is directed to pay doctors is spent, reducing the actual numbers of general practitioners who are willing to take single payer.

2. Increased Federal Outlay: Single payer will require new expenditures in hiring/training/retaining workers, to fund these newly "created" jobs will have to provide payroll. Keeping track of 308,745,538 citizens, the estimated 13-20 million illegals will require a national database and a national id, implementation would start in the 100's of millions all in the name of patient security and privacy.

3. Freedom of Choice: No I don't mean choice in providers, I mean choice to live off grid, under the radar. Having single-payer means the government keeps track of you! You have no choice in the matter. Single storage of your medical history at the push of a button, from DNA to mental history accessible to any government "health" agency. Compulsory blood donations from rare blood types? Matched without permission for an organ-transplant list by "accident"? Mental health watch list escalations?

Are some of the things I see wrong with single payer. We have enough agencies that bleed money with no return, single payer would just be too much for our politicians to handle the influx of cash would be blown faster than Charlie Sheen at a whore house.

[marshabar1]

I think Congressman Dave Reichart sums up the value and superiority of a free market economy very well. Basically governments are retarded, free people are responsive to real conditions as they occur.

Unlike reactionary regulations that are quickly outdated, markets are responsive. They continue to adapt, change, and most importantly, enable change by encouraging innovation.

The value of the free market can also be seen where it is absent. An example is health care where skyrocketing costs threaten families and businesses alike. Our current system is grossly inefficient, failing to reward consumer decisions or to offer outcomes-based incentives to providers. We can make health care more affordable not by limiting services through a restrictive government-run system, but by enabling the free market to expand our choices of health care, bring cost transparency, and improve quality, all while still providing a safety net.

If any region should embrace free market principles, it is the Pacific Northwest. Ours has rightly been described as a “culture of innovation.” The ability to access and compete in global markets has made our region a bastion of investment and job creation, and has spawned major companies like Microsoft, Boeing, Nordstrom, Costco, Amazon.com, and Paccar that influence the course of our daily lives. It is no wonder that entrepreneurs and investors flock to this region and regard it as a beacon of opportunity and prosperity. But it may not always be this way. China, India and the European Union continually look to exploit markets that are created simply by the counterproductive actions of our government.

Our nation faces very real, complex challenges and the solutions will increasingly require us to capitalize on the innovation and efficiencies of the private sector. I am working in Congress to empower the free market to wean our nation from its dependence on foreign oil, make health care more affordable, and ensure that all Americans have the dream of homeownership and a secure retirement.

We are and have always been a nation of innovators, steeled with the indomitable American spirit that knows no problem is insurmountable. But admittedly, not everyone shares this point of view as the recent editorial showed. Ironically, the very day it was printed, on the same page was an editorial extolling private-sector prodigies who have transformed this region through their wealth which flourished within the free market. Their market miracles have created more wealth, jobs, philanthropy and societal good than any government programs which take aim at them. There are very real choices to be made about our economic future and the results will be dramatic in either direction. Our nation thrives because the American spirit has the freedom to innovate, challenging the limitations of our knowledge and the boundaries of our world. Let’s meet the economic challenges before us by preserving the freedom for American innovation — the free market — to produce the solutions we need.

www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/08/11/editorial4.html

[EVT1]

I don't see how it makes private providers public other than they would have to operate under negotiated prices- and so would big Pharma too. I guess they need to be efficient if they want to make a large profit.

You have to consider that administrative costs for providers go down- they have one insurer to deal with and they know payment is guaranteed.

Big brother fears aside, insurance companies already have your medical info available at a touch of a button- and I for one would like that information available to any provider in an emergency situation- plus it can be used to detect fraud- multiple doctors/prescriptions/etc.

It won't be perfect but it beats what we have- other countries have made similar systems work well- there are varieties- why we choose to ignore and count out those systems based on fear is beyond me. I guess the health insurance industry has successfully brainwashed a lot this country into thinking they are needed. We don't need them anymore- they don't provide care, they don't cure disease, they just steal money from the system and cause misery to patients.