- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 8,810
- Reaction score
- 166
I just want to briefly diffuse this thread with a little humor, funny regardless of your stance on the bill. Sorry if anyone else has already posted this.
I just want to briefly diffuse this thread with a little humor, funny regardless of your stance on the bill. Sorry if anyone else has already posted this.
I just want to briefly diffuse this thread with a little humor, funny regardless of your stance on the bill. Sorry if anyone else has already posted this.
LOL Editing fail!
What's everyone's 2 cents on the constitutionality challenges about the mandate being brought up by all the attorney generals? From what I'm hearing from my own research and the news anchors, it's not a wise way to spend one's time since the supremacy clause of the federal government trumps state claims here. Delving a little deeper (and I'll try not to throw in too much constitution jargon...not that I know a lot to begin with), the commerce clause says that anyone that makes a "significant impact" to commerce in general is constitutionally under jurisdiction by the federal government to have a tax imposed on them if a law sees it fit. Since people, by just living and seeing doctors and using our health care system, significantly affects the commerce of our health care economy, this mandate is constitutional.
Can someone reaffirm this? I read it a little while ago, it was kinda' complicated and I might have gotten some of it wrong, but I think that's the general idea.
I'd also think that the President, who has made health care his life for the past year, and who also taught Constitutional Law in Harvard, would know whether such an essential piece of his legislation was constitutional.
I find it kind of ironic that if, by some chance that they DO repeal the mandate aspect of the bill (and somehow get President Obama to sign it instead of veto it ), the only way to make sure the free-market doesn't collapse is it impose a public option to the entire system. People, without a mandate and no bars on pre-existing conditions or annual/lifetime caps, could otherwise just get insurance ONLY when they're sick, get treated, then drop the coverage again right afterwards; aka apocalypse for the private market.
Edit: hahahahaha, that's the best fail ever.
Obama's the most intellectual president we've had in a very long time, so I very much doubt his signature piece of legislation will be ruled unconstitutional. The NYTimes today had an article about why the attorney generals' arguments against the bill's constitutionality have no real chance in court.
Aren't you supposed to be a scientist or at least striving to be one? Kindly tell me your quantitative measures used to rank Mr. Obama as "the most intellectual president we've had in a very long time." Is there a test score or records of his grades that were finally released? Without fail ABSOLUTELY EVERY democrat running for president is always the smartest person ever. How do they keep outdoing themselves every election cycle, each one always the smartest ever?
I can authoritatively say, with every bit as much factual foundation as you have that, President Obama is one of the dumbest presidents we've had in a long time. My point is that saying he's the smartest man ever with no foundation doesn't magically make it true. If you're going into medicine I'd try to look for evidence of something before preaching about it because the New York Times told you. As for the New York Times, wasn't that the paper that had to fire Jason Blair, one of their writers, for just making stories up?
Tutmos are you serious? Here is a real quote!
"Hmmm, uhh, hah -- ummm -- I, the answer is -- I haven't really thought of it that way, heh, heh. Heh. Here's how I think of it. Ummm -- heh heh. First I've heard of that, by the way, I, ah -- uhh -- the, uhh -- I, I guess I'm more of a practical fella. Uhh. I vowed after September the 11th that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. And, uhh -- my attitude, of course, was affected by the attacks.ha ha ...ummm Let me see... I knew we were at a war. I knew that the enemy, obviously, had to be sophisticated, and lethal, to fly hijacked airplanes, uhh, into -- facilities that would, we would, killing thousands of people, innocent people, doin' nothing, just sittin' there goin' to work." -- President George W Bush, after being asked if the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse
While I do agree that Bush was... just terrible at coherently articulating what was on his mind (if anything), it doesn't support how smart President Obama is.
But Tutmos, are you serious? It's pretty common knowledge that Obama is a smart guy. No I don't have his IQ score at hand, or his college transcript, but I don't need that to judge his intellect or his temperament. When he speaks, it is very easy for you to follow what he is saying, and it is all very logical and incredibly well articulated. When he went to Baltimore for the Republican retreat, he took very tough pre-thought out questions on from a whole host of harsh critics, and answered them masterfully. To go into the lions den and not only come out alive, but come out triumphant, is a testament to his intellect. Why else do you think everyone was thinking how the Republicans were gonna' prepare this time, for the Health Care Summit.
Of course the WAY he speaks isn't indicative of intelligence, but it is part of it. The bottom line is, I can't convince you of how smart he is, it's something that you should just see in him. An African American man does not become the President of the United States without being exceptional, and intellect is a pre-requisite to this. Hmm, off the top of my head, I remember CNN judging Obama as #3 in the "Sexiest Presidents Ever" hahaha, and one of the reasons he was ranked so high was because he was a very smart man.
Obviously none of these DEEM intelligence, but they point in that direction. He was a professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard, if that does anything for you?
Tutmos are you serious? Here is a real quote!
"Hmmm, uhh, hah -- ummm -- I, the answer is -- I haven't really thought of it that way, heh, heh. Heh. Here's how I think of it. Ummm -- heh heh. First I've heard of that, by the way, I, ah -- uhh -- the, uhh -- I, I guess I'm more of a practical fella. Uhh. I vowed after September the 11th that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. And, uhh -- my attitude, of course, was affected by the attacks.ha ha ...ummm Let me see... I knew we were at a war. I knew that the enemy, obviously, had to be sophisticated, and lethal, to fly hijacked airplanes, uhh, into -- facilities that would, we would, killing thousands of people, innocent people, doin' nothing, just sittin' there goin' to work." -- President George W Bush, after being asked if the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse
No body, and I mean no body, disses my president and gets away with it!!I can't believe you actually took the time to explain this to him/her.
If anyone actually bothered to type up obama's stuff with all the uhhs and umms, it would look pretty bad, too.
But Tutmos, are you serious? It's pretty common knowledge that Obama is a smart guy.
That's about what I expected. It's just common knowledge. How could you even say that with a straight face in public without feeling silly?
I didn't really claim he was stupid. I was just toying around with how childish the claim of his vast intellect is with no basis outside of his ability to read out loud off a teleprompter. If that were a true measure of intellect my 7 year old daughter would be smarter than many of you in this thread.
I suggest going into a bar and telling women that it's common knowledge you're the best lover in 5 states.
If anyone actually bothered to type up obama's stuff with all the uhhs and umms, it would look pretty bad, too.
Jesus Christ people ... stop replying to Drad.
Why are we arguing his intelligence? He's a smart guy. There really isn't any denying this. However, intelligence doesn't naturally equate to good leadership, instinct, etc. ESPECIALLY without experience, which frankly, Obama was light on before he was elected. Also, to those making Bush comments ... lol, I don't know if anyone on here is going to defend George Bush on an intellectual level, but I don't think he ummm and uhhh anymore than Obama without a prompter.
No body, and I mean no body, disses my president and gets away with it!!
lol jk, but I actually got curious and did some research. While he hasn't published his GPA or LSAT/SAT score online, he DID graduate from Harvard Law School with Magna Cum Laude, so that's pretty impressive.
Also, apparently his IQ is high enough to get accepted into MENSA.
So yeah Tutmos, what up?
http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/d-prez.html
I know this isn't the most credibly source, but you can't find much on stuff like this.
Republicans were using the word "repeal" a lot in the hours after the House voted to pass the health-care reform bill. But as the hours turn to days, they're talking about repeal less, qualifying it more, and even finding themselves mentioning things they like about the bill. Suzy Khimm runs through the changing rhetoric:
Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, the poster boy for the conservative insurgency, said on Monday that he wasn't sure whether he'd support overturning the health care law, calling moves to do so "a little premature." As ThinkProgress notes, Rep. Phil Gingrey told CNN that he "does not want" to throw out everything in the bill, noting that there are many provisions including health insurance exchanges, electronic medical records, greater coverage for dependents, expanded Medicaid, and increased consumer protections that he supports. Rudy Giuliani also opposes repealing the bill. And the Chamber of Commerce the business lobby group which often backs conservative causes and which spent some $144 million campaigning against health care reform has said it won't support a GOP effort to throw out the legislation. [...]So in about 12 hours, the GOP's position has gone from "repeal this socialist monstrosity that will destroy our final freedoms" to "there are some things we don't like about this legislation and would like to repeal, and there are some things we support and would like to keep."
Senator John Cornyn, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, saidTuesday that Republicans should only focus on repealing the most controversial elements of health reform. Like Guthrie, he maintained that there are provisions worth keeping. And Senators Jon Kyl and Mike Enzi both said that partial repeal would be a more realistic goal.
"We always said there are things that we can all agree on in the bill," said Rep. Brett Guthrie.
At this rate, they'll be running on expanding the bill come November.
I still can't believe we aren't in a desperate panic to find the missing 8 States of America. The smartest president in a long time said there were 58 states! Where did they go?!?
Edit: he had one to go still
Well, the supremacy clause only applies if the "supremacy" is constitutional which is what is being challenged. The state in the best situation is Virginia with their passed (and signed) bill that bars a mandate to purchase insurance.From what I'm hearing from my own research and the news anchors, it's not a wise way to spend one's time since the supremacy clause of the federal government trumps state claims here. Delving a little deeper (and I'll try not to throw in too much constitution jargon...not that I know a lot to begin with), the commerce clause says that anyone that makes a "significant impact" to commerce in general is constitutionally under jurisdiction by the federal government to have a tax imposed on them if a law sees it fit. Since people, by just living and seeing doctors and using our health care system, significantly affects the commerce of our health care economy, this mandate is constitutional.
Well, the courts dont need his signature first of all. Most people talking about repealing are also talking about once he is out of office, and I dont think anyone is talking about simply repealing the mandate and leaving everything else the same.I find it kind of ironic that if, by some chance that they DO repeal the mandate aspect of the bill (and somehow get President Obama to sign it instead of veto it ), the only way to make sure the free-market doesn't collapse is it impose a public option to the entire system.
Where in the world did you find that one? I know Louie and he is a good guy, as are most people in Washington if we were to get to know them personally. Thats hilarious.REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): Theyre gonna pass this on the backs of the armed forces. This should not be passed by anyone unless they eat it. If they eat it, then Im in favor of them passing it, otherwise, dont pass it.
I'm sure that has nothing to do with the many writers actually writing his speeches.When he speaks, it is very easy for you to follow what he is saying, and it is all very logical and incredibly well articulated.
In case anyone doubts me.
Where in the world did you find that one? I know Louie and he is a good guy, as are most people in Washington if we were to get to know them personally. Thats hilarious.
I'm sure that has nothing to do with the many writers actually writing his speeches.
You're quoting a source that links the following sources: Mother Jones, Huffington Post, Think Progress and Boston.com? I'm starting to get a sense that you might not be entirely unbiased. In all fairness it did have one quote from WSJ but the others are a bit laughable. Those are on par with me quoting Michael Savage, which I don't.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT1dhH9x1Uo&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]
I was trying to find the quotes online. They are all over Fox, CNN, MSNBC saying how they want a repeal, but not 'all of it', just the mandate and taxes. That it was their idea all along to have insurance pools and no denials of pre-existing coverage.
Whether that's true or not is not my point, the point is they won't repeal the entitlements and they're flat out saying so.
Whether that's true or not is not my point, the point is they won't repeal the entitlements and they're flat out saying so.
Thats hilarious, and ironically a little "medical" humor. lol
I like Biden saying 'This is a big f*cking deal' more. Jeeze, you guys want to get back into the intelligence discussion
Hi six-pack ... these are microphones, and what they do is ...
you get the idea.
I dont agree completely with that assessment of what they are saying, but whats the big issue with them not repealing the entitlements?
Only that the entitlements are really what matter in the end to most people, and as far as policy is concerned. What type of tax or revenue you use to pay for those entitlements is a secondary concern.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. How would one quantify the idea that the entitlements are really what matter to "most people"? I simply dont agree.
Well, we'll agree to disagree there. The people clamoring for healthcare reform were crying out about the ban on preexisting conditions, not whether to add a 1% medicare payroll vs. a carbon tax to pay for it. Throughout the different versions of the bill, there were a million different taxes introduced that would pay for it different ways, and the ones that pissed off the least amount of democrats were kept. If some other type of taxes were more palatable, they would have been introduced.
If the entitlements stay but the method of payment changes, that would be a clear policy victory for the democrats, I thought that was quite obvious.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. How would one quantify the idea that the entitlements are really what matter to "most people"? I simply dont agree.
we will see whether the health care bill is even constitutional...
Are you saying a ban on preexisting conditions would be an "entitlement"?
Why are we talking about "policy wins" here anyway? This is the problem with this stuff, we should care less about policy wins for our party an more about wins for the American people. I know, that stuff is just naive though....
Im gonna have to agree with loktar, once you give all these people something for "free" it would be political suicide to try and take it back. Its like going to an open bar and then the bar saying o wait were gonna have to start charging and cant do the open bar, youd be pissed and leave.
Well the bill overall would be, the individual mandate is the only question. Oddly enough, both the right wing and the really left wing are hoping that is repealed. However, if you look at the wording, it is very carefully worded as a tax.
Source: Section 1501 "Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage"
I agree with you but dont think that was the point he was making here.
The wording as a "tax" doesn't ease the burden of being constitutional. This will still be fought out, but I dont see it changing anything.