HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Off-Topic :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Date: December 13, 2010 12:16PM

Well, that was a waste of two fucking years...

http://www.benzinga.com/movers/10/12/693890/obama-health-care-bill-ruled-unconstitutional


...For background, I always had my doubts about the constitutionality of that provision in the bill. I guess the rest of the law could be constitutional, but I'm not sure how it is supposed to be paid for after this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: justsayin ()
Date: December 13, 2010 12:22PM

Look out if that is upheld and the insurers are still forced to accept all applicants... the individual mandate is what was keeping the insurers in business with that requirement.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Voter____ ()
Date: December 13, 2010 12:22PM

That wasn't unexpected. Everybody knew this particular judge would rule it unconstitutional. Others have ruled that it is constitutional. Everybody understands this will ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, that was a waste of two fucking years...
>
> http://www.benzinga.com/movers/10/12/693890/obama-
> health-care-bill-ruled-unconstitutional
>
>
> ...For background, I always had my doubts about
> the constitutionality of that provision in the
> bill. I guess the rest of the law could be
> constitutional, but I'm not sure how it is
> supposed to be paid for after this.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Date: December 13, 2010 12:24PM

Voter____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That wasn't unexpected. Everybody knew this
> particular judge would rule it unconstitutional.
> Others have ruled that it is constitutional.
> Everybody understands this will ultimately be
> resolved by the Supreme Court.
>


I don't see this Supreme Court overturning this decision or decisions like it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: ITRADE ()
Date: December 13, 2010 12:28PM

Circuit split. Dont expect anything to reach the supremes for at least 12 months.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: *FU Family Guy* ()
Date: December 13, 2010 12:55PM

This was a NO-brainer.
Leave it to our great president Obama to try and force a blatantly unconstitutional bill down our throats, this is ths "Change" with NO-"Hope" we were talking about all along....but he was a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER right?
--
UN-constitutional just like "GAY"-Marraige is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.

MAN + MAN = QUEERS
MAN + WOMAN = MARRAIGE

MARRAIGE REPRESENTS A *FAMILY UNIT*.
TWO QUEER MEN CO-HABITATING DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A FAMILY UNIT AND TO EQUATE SUCH AS AN EQUAL IS DISCRIMINATION TO MARRIED COUPLES AND REQUIRES RE-DEFINING THE ORIGINAL DEFINITION AND TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF THE WORD "MARRAIGE".

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: vgnlinfxn ()
Date: December 13, 2010 01:00PM

*FU Family Guy* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This was a NO-brainer.
> Leave it to our great president Obama to try and
> force a blatantly unconstitutional bill down our
> throats, this is ths "Change" with NO-"Hope" we
> were talking about all along....but he was a
> COMMUNITY ORGANIZER right?
> --
> UN-constitutional just like "GAY"-Marraige is
> UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.
>
> MAN + MAN = QUEERS
> MAN + WOMAN = MARRAIGE
>
> MARRAIGE REPRESENTS A *FAMILY UNIT*.
> TWO QUEER MEN CO-HABITATING DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A
> FAMILY UNIT AND TO EQUATE SUCH AS AN EQUAL IS
> DISCRIMINATION TO MARRIED COUPLES AND REQUIRES
> RE-DEFINING THE ORIGINAL DEFINITION AND
> TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF THE WORD "MARRAIGE".


Wanna play tummy sticks?

Good luck redefining "marraige," I think it needs a definition to be able to redefine it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Twinkle Toes ()
Date: December 13, 2010 01:01PM

*FU Family Guy* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This was a NO-brainer.
> Leave it to our great president Obama to try and
> force a blatantly unconstitutional bill down our
> throats, this is ths "Change" with NO-"Hope" we
> were talking about all along....but he was a
> COMMUNITY ORGANIZER right?
> --
> UN-constitutional just like "GAY"-Marraige is
> UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.
>
> MAN + MAN = QUEERS
> MAN + WOMAN = MARRAIGE
>
> MARRAIGE REPRESENTS A *FAMILY UNIT*.
> TWO QUEER MEN CO-HABITATING DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A
> FAMILY UNIT AND TO EQUATE SUCH AS AN EQUAL IS
> DISCRIMINATION TO MARRIED COUPLES AND REQUIRES
> RE-DEFINING THE ORIGINAL DEFINITION AND
> TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF THE WORD "MARRAIGE".


Troll, I find your gay denier bit to be quite sexy...wanna see my nazi china plate?
Attachments:
AmericanBeauty1999ChrisCooperColFrankF_imagelarge.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: LOA@llorT ()
Date: December 13, 2010 01:08PM

Good thing YOU don't have a point.
Besides, the only ones who are in 'gay denial', are
twinkle toes shit sucking homosexual perverts like yourself.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: *ANTI -QUEERbot* ()
Date: December 13, 2010 01:15PM

'vgnlinfxn' wrote :
-----------------------------------------------------
> "Good luck redefining "marraige," I think it needs
> a definition to be able to redefine it."

HOW ABOUT A LEGAL DEFINITION, WOULD THAT SUFFICE ?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=Marraige <<-- RETARDED FAGGOTS CLICK HERE

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: vgnlinfxn ()
Date: December 13, 2010 01:19PM

*ANTI -QUEERbot* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> HOW ABOUT A LEGAL DEFINITION, WOULD THAT SUFFICE
> ?
>
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/di
> ct.aspx?word=Marraige <<-- RETARDED FAGGOTS CLICK
> HERE


That defines marriage. I still don't know what marraige is.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: *FU AnswerBot* ()
Date: December 13, 2010 01:33PM

> "I still don't know what marraige is."

Marraige is when a man and a woman are married.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/married <<--Click HERE for what marraige is.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: conVince ()
Date: December 13, 2010 01:36PM

Let the rekord show that as this was announced, Obama and the demokrats kontrol the white house and all of kongress. If there is a law to be passed to patch this, they are empowered to do it. Won't be able to blame this on Republicans.

------------------------------------

twitter @EyeAmU



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2010 01:37PM by conVince.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Twinkle Toes ()
Date: December 13, 2010 01:39PM

I looked at that, and it said that marriage is a contract. Everyone knows that a contract contains lots of biolerplate language, like the whole "between a man and woman" part. For me, I say skip through the recitals of the contract, and let's get right to the rectals instead!

What you say Troll? Have you ever climaxed another man by using only your lips?

*ANTI -QUEERbot* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 'vgnlinfxn' wrote :
> --------------------------------------------------
> ---
> > "Good luck redefining "marraige," I think it
> needs
> > a definition to be able to redefine it."
>
> HOW ABOUT A LEGAL DEFINITION, WOULD THAT SUFFICE
> ?
>
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/di
> ct.aspx?word=Marraige <<-- RETARDED FAGGOTS CLICK
> HERE

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: village idiot ()
Date: December 13, 2010 01:45PM

A lot of judges take the stance of "judicial notice" when deciding cases if there has already been a decision made by another judge in a similar case. I wonder how this will affect decisions of judges in other states where similar challenges have been raised.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Non-GAY Troll ()
Date: December 13, 2010 02:09PM

'twinkle toes' wrote :
--------------------------------------------
> "I looked at that, and it said that marriage is a contract. Everyone knows
> that a contract contains lots of biolerplate language,"

THERE IS NOTHING BIOLERPLATE ABOUT IT
THAT WAS THE DEFINITION OF *MARRIED*
AS IN : THE STATE OF MARRAIGE, WHICH I PREVIOUSLY
GAVE YOU THE DEFINITION OF.

> "like the whole "between a man and woman" part.
> For me, I say skip through the recitals of the contract,
> and let's get right to the rectals instead!

ARE YOU TRYING TO ASK ME IF I WILL FUCK YOU IN YOUR ASS ?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Married Bum ()
Date: December 13, 2010 02:21PM

vgnlinfxn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> *ANTI -QUEERbot* Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > HOW ABOUT A LEGAL DEFINITION, WOULD THAT
> SUFFICE
> > ?
> >
> >
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/di
>
> > ct.aspx?word=Marraige <<-- RETARDED FAGGOTS
> CLICK
> > HERE
>
>
> That defines marriage. I still don't know what
> marraige is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Might as well make gay marriage legal, most marriages are pain in the ass anyway!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Britdrnva~ ()
Date: December 13, 2010 03:08PM

While I'm not a fan of mandating insurance for all (imo that's the problem is insurance), I'm not sure why Republicans are so happy about this.

By making everyone get insurance it would ostensibly lower healthcare costs due to the number of people that come in without any insurance (your insurance in effect subsidizes the costs of those without). By making everyone get insurance it would in effect (or so they say) lower the costs.

Bush passed his drug plan that had a requirement for all retirees (Part D) - without which they would be penalized...that had no problems. Not sure why this one does.

Also, one more analogy - we are all required to have car insurance - if we don't we must pay a penalty tax, would this ruling in effect also include car insurance?

Personally, I can't stand the insurance industry (especially health) but I'm curious as to why the right is gloating on this - I honestly think it's because its an "in your face" to Obama more than anything - as it really doesn't make too much sense to me.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: WingNut ()
Date: December 13, 2010 03:16PM

We are not "all required to have auto ibsurance", all drivers are..


idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: stanhope ()
Date: December 13, 2010 03:19PM

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, one more analogy - we are all required to
> have car insurance - if we don't we must pay a
> penalty tax, would this ruling in effect also
> include car insurance?

I've heard this one over and over and it fails on so many levels, it surprises me it is still repeated ad nauseum. I can choose not to drive. I can take a bus, taxi, train, bicycle, limosuine, and even walk. Also, you are driving on roads with other motorists and you could be negligent in causing damage. If I choose not to go to a doctor or pay cash if I decide to go, who am I harming?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Voter____ ()
Date: December 13, 2010 03:29PM

You are trying to make sense of a group of people that have none. Trying to figure out why the same crowd that was outraged about "Death Panels" is also outraged about mandating that everyone be insured is like a dog chasing it's tail--futile. You can't deny me coverage and you can't make me pay for it!

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While I'm not a fan of mandating insurance for all
> (imo that's the problem is insurance), I'm not
> sure why Republicans are so happy about this.
>

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Voter____ ()
Date: December 13, 2010 03:33PM

You get hit by a bus and are unconscious on the sidewalk. If we can't find your insurance card should be just leave you to die? What if you recover and don't want to pay the bill--is it okay if we give you a lethal injection? What if your child is born prematurely and you don't have insurance. Is it okay if we don't treat the child and let it die if you don't have the million dollars treatment will require?

stanhope Wrote:
> causing damage. If I choose not to go to a doctor
> or pay cash if I decide to go, who am I harming?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Britdrnva~ ()
Date: December 13, 2010 04:07PM

stanhope Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Britdrnva~ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Also, one more analogy - we are all required to
> > have car insurance - if we don't we must pay a
> > penalty tax, would this ruling in effect also
> > include car insurance?
>
> I've heard this one over and over and it fails on
> so many levels, it surprises me it is still
> repeated ad nauseum. I can choose not to drive.
> I can take a bus, taxi, train, bicycle, limosuine,
> and even walk. Also, you are driving on roads
> with other motorists and you could be negligent in
> causing damage. If I choose not to go to a doctor
> or pay cash if I decide to go, who am I harming?

stanhope - fair enough - point taken - I will agree with you that if I drive I should have to have insurance...but what if I live - we all choose to live - must we not also be covered under some plan for that?

Who pays when someone is wheeled in after having a heart attack only to have no insurance and no possible way to pay back the hospital for all the care? Why...you pay...or you do if you have insurance, there is also some tax write off as charity care for it, but the bulk of it gets passed on.

My problem with insurance and why I don't care for it, is that it's such a monstrosity of bureaucracy and inefficiency far worse than any governmental agency in terms of dollars spent vs benefits received. The myriad of insurance schemes and rules make the administrative cost of running insurance anywhere from 15-30%! Every dollar you spend towards health insurance...perhaps only 70 cents is actually used for it.

No 1st world governmental agency (including the US' medicare/medicaid) is so wasteful in terms of dollars spent. The US spends >16% of its GDP on healthcare...no other nation comes close to that level of spending. And you'd think you get the best care in the world with that outlay of cash. Yet the US is like 45th in IMR/life expectancy. WHO ranks the US 72 out of 191 countries!! You'd think w spending such vast sums we truly would be #1. On top of that, because it's a for-profit scheme (which rations just as equally as a socialized system does) it can continually increasing rates to maintain the profitability of the whole system.

The inefficiency, the waste, the vast sums spent for such little in return, and the whole profiting off of ones sickness - I'm still amazed the US puts up with it. But there is a great spin out there and most of you (especially on the right) have fallen for it - for whatever reasons. And you advocate the status quo and continuation of this morass. It won't get better, I can assure you that.

The Obamacare was definitely not the answer either. That's why so many on the left were aghast at it (for different reasons than the right) - as it perpetuates the very problem it should be solving. Anyway, interesting topic hits close to home, I'll /rant off now.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: iceman ()
Date: December 13, 2010 04:38PM

*FU Family Guy* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> MARRAIGE REPRESENTS A *FAMILY UNIT*.
> TWO QUEER MEN CO-HABITATING DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A
> FAMILY UNIT AND TO EQUATE SUCH AS AN EQUAL IS
> DISCRIMINATION TO MARRIED COUPLES AND REQUIRES
> RE-DEFINING THE ORIGINAL DEFINITION AND
> TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF THE WORD "MARRAIGE".

Who defined that for you the Pope and the Priests or the same Church that sits back and does nothing when Pedophiles hide behind their sanctuaries.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: *QuestionBot* ()
Date: December 13, 2010 04:49PM

Anon-idiot 'iceman' wrote :
-------------------------------------------------
> "Who defined that for you the Pope and the Priests or the same Church
> that sits back and does nothing when Pedophiles hide behind their
> sanctuaries."


You seem familiar with pedophiles.
It's funny you mentioned that though because how is letting those
same pedophile priests enjoy the social-label 'marraige', going to
reduce the number of children that get their assholes violated by
these homosexual-PERVERTS ?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Date: December 13, 2010 04:56PM

'Britdrnva' wrote :
---------------------------------
> "Also, one more analogy - we are all required to have car insurance -"

THAT'S NOT AN ANALOGY BECAUSE WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DRIVE.

> "if we don't we must pay a penalty tax,

TELL THAT TO ALL THESE ILLEGAL DRUNKEN MEXICANS THE POLICE JUST
LET GO FROM THE SCENE THAT KEEP HITTING AND KILLING PEOPLE.

> "would this ruling in effect also include car insurance?"

NO IDIOT, THIS RULING WAS FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Date: December 13, 2010 05:02PM

but what if I live - we all choose to live

NO WE DON'T.

YOU HAD NO IDEA YOU WERE SLITHERING OUT OF YOUR
MOTHERS CUNT AND PRE-PROGRAMED SURVIVAL INSTINCTS ARE WHAT
DRIVES US TO EAT, DRINK, SLEEP, and BREATHE -NOT CHOICE.

BUT I GUESS I CAN'T EXPECT A FAKE DOCTOR TO KNOW ALL THAT.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Twinkle Toes ()
Date: December 13, 2010 05:03PM

Hi Trolly-poo? I am still waiting for my testicular massage ;)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: December 13, 2010 05:30PM

As usual, the folks who just want us to pay the government for everything 'don't get it'.

Medicare is not the same as regular health insurance - why? Because the government provides it as part of the tax base. Even the prescription drug coverage was just that - coverage that could be purchased. Again, the biggest problem with Obamacare was the fact that the Dems did not want to pass a new TAX - so they instead went down this meandering road to mandate people pay insurers - because they know that a radical increase in taxes would not have been supported by the folks in the middle. They oversold the fact that insurance rates should go down since more people would have to pay into the system - the reality is, insurance rates are going to skyrocket and already have. So now you have the administration trying to defend this BS in court as a tax, which they pointed out it was not when they rammed it down our throats, and then trying to place the blame on the insurance companies for their bad law and the consequences.

Too fucking bad - boo hoo dems. Guess what, when it gets to SCOTUS, they will most likely support the VA judge in determining it as unconstitutional. Then hopefully we will go back to the drawing board and try to fix the system the correct way, by putting in incentives for folks to go to medical school, and getting the AMA out of the way of determining who can, and cannot be a doctor or a specialist. And they aren't basing this on ability, they are screening people out based on the quotas they have setup for how many doctors they want to 'allow' each year to make sure they don't have too many doctors to make it so the market will allow folks to charge less for services. That and getting the insurance companies out of the for profit business, or a limited form of profit so that premiums can be paid back into the system - kind of like how USAA does insurance. You pay into the system, and if costs are lower in a given year, you get back a premium. There has to be a better way to manage the insurance costs without going to fully government run healthcare - just look at Europe and elsewhere to see how that is falling apart and you'll see why it is an idea that has failed.

Folks should be asking why the government seems to want to limit flex spending accounts - weren't they a better mechanism to avoid paying more money to insurers?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2010 05:32PM by Registered Voter.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Britdrnva~ ()
Date: December 13, 2010 05:45PM

RV wrote:
"...just look at Europe and elsewhere to see how that is falling apart and you'll see why it is an idea that has failed. "

I see this claim that the European systems are failed but I don't know how this assertion can be made without backup. I've worked/seen the English/French system first-hand (and now the American). On a macro-level, it is the US system that is broken and seriously needs fixing. It isn't completely dysfunctional...it does work...but at a serious inefficiency that continues to get worse every year.

I don't see how spending far less than the US + getting better overall health for your citizens = a failed system. To me, I'd think the US would be looking at how to work off that sort of system and tweaking it to be better instead of just increasing the current bloat.

The US pays more than any country in the world for healthcare. By every national indicator the US is not close to #1 in the return for that spend on any metric (morbidity, IMF, cause-specific mortality, etc). I'm not being rightwing/leftwing here - I'm just stating what it is.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: *Itchy Balls* ()
Date: December 13, 2010 05:59PM

> "The US pays more than any country in the world for healthcare.
> By every national indicator the US is not close to #1 in the return
> for that spend on any metric (morbidity, IMF, cause-specific mortality, etc).

YES IT IS.
PEOPLE FROM ALL AROUND THE WORLD FLY OVER HERE ALL THE TIME
BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME OF THE BEST SPECIALISTS IN THE WORLD.

> "I'm not being rightwing/leftwing here - I'm just stating what it is."

NO, YOU'RE JUST BEING A COCK-TEASE.
TWINKLE TOES NEEDS HIS BALLS MASSAGED, MAYBE YOU CAN TAKE CARE OF THAT FOR HIM.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: ThePackLeader ()
Date: December 13, 2010 06:29PM

Cuccinelli is da man!

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Dane Bramage ()
Date: December 13, 2010 09:31PM

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RV wrote:
> "...just look at Europe and elsewhere to see how
> that is falling apart and you'll see why it is an
> idea that has failed. "
>
> I see this claim that the European systems are
> failed but I don't know how this assertion can be
> made without backup.

Anecdotally, a Canadian friend of mine needed an MRI for some debilitating symptoms. He was in Canada, but his US coverage from college was still in effect. The wait time in Canada was four months, so he came back to the states and had it done in three days.

Healthcare is supply and demand. No matter what socialistic approach you take, it is reform that's needed to fix the system. Fix the FDA, the AMA and a lot of other problems created by over-bureaucracy.

A study on wait times in Canada:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/waiting-your-turn-2010.pdf

The physicians who were surveyed were asked what they thought a reasonable wait time for the procedures that they specialize in. Overall, the Fraser Institute found that the actual wait period exceeded what was thought to be reasonable 73% of the time.

-------------------------------------------------
“We don’t have any rude, unpleasant people here. We’re different!”

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Voter____ ()
Date: December 14, 2010 07:17AM

Some interesting thoughts about the individual mandate:

The irony is that conservatives, either from confusion, or for the sheer fun of taking a political bite out of Democrats, are fighting the one measure that's essential if private insurance is to retain its central role in American health care.

So, conservatives, be careful what you wish for. By fighting the mandate needed to make private insurance solutions work, and doing nothing to ease the health cost burden on everyday Americans, you'll hasten the day when the public throws up its hands and says, "Just give us single-payer and price controls." Don't think the anti-government wave this fall won't reverse itself on health care if the most private sector-oriented health care system on earth keeps delivering the world's costliest, most inefficient care.

Republicans used to understand these economics perfectly. That's why Bob Dole, Howard Baker, John Chaffee and Mitt Romney (among others) have all supported individual mandates. Are all these Republicans constitutional rogues? No one disputes that the federal government has the power to stop insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions. Under the Constitution, the feds thus have the corresponding power to enact reasonable measures to assure that this reform actually works. For seven decades the Supreme Court's reading of the commerce clause has made this permissible. If you haven't made constitutional peace with the New Deal, that's a different matter, but for almost every legal scholar, this question is settled.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/20/AR2010102003357.html

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: December 14, 2010 07:22AM

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RV wrote:
> "...just look at Europe and elsewhere to see how
> that is falling apart and you'll see why it is an
> idea that has failed. "
>
> I see this claim that the European systems are
> failed but I don't know how this assertion can be
> made without backup. I've worked/seen the
> English/French system first-hand (and now the
> American). On a macro-level, it is the US system
> that is broken and seriously needs fixing. It
> isn't completely dysfunctional...it does
> work...but at a serious inefficiency that
> continues to get worse every year.
>
> I don't see how spending far less than the US +
> getting better overall health for your citizens =
> a failed system. To me, I'd think the US would be
> looking at how to work off that sort of system and
> tweaking it to be better instead of just
> increasing the current bloat.
>
> The US pays more than any country in the world for
> healthcare. By every national indicator the US is
> not close to #1 in the return for that spend on
> any metric (morbidity, IMF, cause-specific
> mortality, etc). I'm not being rightwing/leftwing
> here - I'm just stating what it is.

We also have what would be considered concierge level hospitals here in the US - which is why hospital stays cost so much. Maybe if we went to dormitory rooms it would be cheaper, but in the US, everyone wants a private or semi-private room. That is not cheap. That is where a lot of the inflated costs come from at that level - we already know we have supply issues where folks milk the system to overcharge for services - and the insurance companies never pay full price. So is the claim that US health care is the most expensive based on the 'retail' price of services, or on the real price that is actually paid by health insurers? I will bet that the numbers they come up with to claim how expensive it is here in the US come off the charged rates, and not the real payments at the end.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Voter____ ()
Date: December 14, 2010 07:23AM

More thoughts:

The individual mandate began life as a Republican idea. Its earliest appearances in legislation were in the Republican alternatives to the Clinton health-care bill, where it was co-sponsored by such GOP stalwarts as Bob Dole, Orrin G. Hatch and Charles E. Grassley. Later on, it was the centerpiece of then-Gov. Mitt Romney's health-reform plan in Massachusetts, and then it was included in the Wyden-Bennett bill, which many Republicans signed on to.

It was only when the individual mandate appeared in President Obama's legislation that it became so polarizing on the right. The political logic was clear enough: The individual mandate was the most unpopular piece of the bill (you might remember that Obama's 2008 campaign plan omitted it, and he frequently attacked Hillary Clinton for endorsing it in her proposal). But as a policy choice, it might prove disastrous.

The individual mandate was created by conservatives who realized that it was the only way to get universal coverage into the private market. Otherwise, insurers turn away the sick, public anger rises, and, eventually, you get some kind of government-run, single-payer system, much as they did in Europe, and much as we have with Medicare.

If Republicans succeed in taking it off the table, they may sign the death warrant for private insurers in America: Eventually, rising cost pressures will force more aggressive reforms than even Obama has proposed, and if conservative judges have made the private market unfixable by removing the most effective way to deal with adverse selection problems, the only alternative will be the very constitutional, but decidedly non-conservative, single-payer path.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121306759.html

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: george ()
Date: December 14, 2010 07:57AM

*QuestionBot* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anon-idiot 'iceman' wrote :
> -------------------------------------------------
> > "Who defined that for you the Pope and the
> Priests or the same Church
> > that sits back and does nothing when Pedophiles
> hide behind their
> > sanctuaries."
>
>
> You seem familiar with pedophiles.
> It's funny you mentioned that though because how
> is letting those
> same pedophile priests enjoy the social-label
> 'marraige', going to
> reduce the number of children that get their
> assholes violated by
> these homosexual-PERVERTS ?


How about you send your son to me and i ream his asshole. Lets say after that if you care about violations by perverts.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: WingNut ()
Date: December 14, 2010 08:05AM

Wasn't Obama touted as some kind of hotshot constitutional lawyer? Actually I may be mistaken but I think he was just some dipshit law professor who never really prospered in private practice or litigated a serious case.

No wonder he would jackoff so much of Americas time and resources on policy that could be laughingly dismissed as unconstitutional so easily.


idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Voter____ ()
Date: December 14, 2010 08:14AM

Really?

The latest ruling, from a federal judge in Lynchburg, Va., upheld the law, dismissing a challenge brought by Liberty University and five individuals. Click here for the 54-page opinion; here for the Bloomberg story; here for the NYT story; here for all previous LB coverage of the health-care challenges.

The suit, like many others, claimed that Congress lacked the power to force all Americans to purchase health-care insurance. But federal judge Norman Moon, a Bill Clinton appointee, ruled that the “challenged provisions are well within Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause†of the constitution.

The case is one of several challenges to the health-care act. A federal judge in Michigan upheld the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul in October, rejecting an argument by a Christian law center.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/12/01/another-constitutional-health-care-challenge-falls-by-the-wayside/


WingNut Wrote:
>
> time and resources on policy that could be
> laughingly dismissed as unconstitutional so
> easily.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: WingNut ()
Date: December 14, 2010 08:22AM

What do you define "latest ruling" as? The ruling the was shot out of the water by the higher court ruling yesterday?


Yes, loser, that's how I want to spend my morning- reading 54 pages of legalese.






Voter____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really?
>
> The latest ruling, from a federal judge in
> Lynchburg, Va., upheld the law, dismissing a
> challenge brought by Liberty University and five
> individuals. Click here for the 54-page opinion;
> here for the Bloomberg story; here for the NYT
> story; here for all previous LB coverage of the
> health-care challenges.
>
> The suit, like many others, claimed that Congress
> lacked the power to force all Americans to
> purchase health-care insurance. But federal judge
> Norman Moon, a Bill Clinton appointee, ruled that
> the “challenged provisions are well within
> Congress’s authority under the Commerce
> Clause†of the constitution.
>
> The case is one of several challenges to the
> health-care act. A federal judge in Michigan
> upheld the constitutionality of the health-care
> overhaul in October, rejecting an argument by a
> Christian law center.
>
> http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/12/01/another-consti
> tutional-health-care-challenge-falls-by-the-waysid
> e/
>
>
> WingNut Wrote:
> >
> > time and resources on policy that could be
> > laughingly dismissed as unconstitutional so
> > easily.


idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Voter____ ()
Date: December 14, 2010 08:30AM

Where I come from 'losers' are people who spent most of the 90's locked up on drug charges.


WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you define "latest ruling" as? The ruling
> the was shot out of the water by the higher court
> ruling yesterday?
>
>
> Yes, loser, that's how I want to spend my morning-
> reading 54 pages of legalese.
>

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: WingNut ()
Date: December 14, 2010 08:36AM

I only sold drugs to you and your gay nerd college friends and maybe your then pregnant mother.

Now how about posting a lower court ruling (by a partisan Clinton appointee at that) and trying to pass it off as the "latest ruling"?




Voter____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where I come from 'losers' are people who spent
> most of the 90's locked up on drug charges.
>
>
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What do you define "latest ruling" as? The
> ruling
> > the was shot out of the water by the higher
> court
> > ruling yesterday?
> >
> >
> > Yes, loser, that's how I want to spend my
> morning-
> > reading 54 pages of legalese.
> >


idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Voter____ ()
Date: December 14, 2010 08:44AM

I wasn't trying to pass anything off as the latest rule--that was a direct quote from the article I was posting. My point was that a law you blithely characterize as 'easily dismissed as unconstitutional' is not so cut and dried. Yes, one court yesterday found one piece unconstitutional but other decisions before have found the same provisional constitutional. I don't recall you finding those decisions as important as the one you agree with. If you've got something intelligent to contribute, please do. But if all you've got is personal insults, save them.

WingNut Wrote:
> Now how about posting a lower court ruling (by a
> partisan Clinton appointee at that) and trying to
> pass it off as the "latest ruling"?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: WingNut ()
Date: December 14, 2010 08:51AM

It is pretty cut and dry, sir but I apologize for the confusion.

Sorry about the mother crack, I am sure she is a nice girl. Your soft, unproductive and self-hating suburban ass believes the government and the people who do work owe you something. Your posts reflect your childish mentality.

You did buy drugs from me, didn't you? You should have quit when I went away, you'd be much more coherent now and may actually have some ambition.


Voter____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wasn't trying to pass anything off as the latest
> rule--that was a direct quote from the article I
> was posting. My point was that a law you blithely
> characterize as 'easily dismissed as
> unconstitutional' is not so cut and dried. Yes,
> one court yesterday found one piece
> unconstitutional but other decisions before have
> found the same provisional constitutional. I
> don't recall you finding those decisions as
> important as the one you agree with. If you've
> got something intelligent to contribute, please
> do. But if all you've got is personal insults,
> save them.
>
> WingNut Wrote:
> > Now how about posting a lower court ruling (by
> a
> > partisan Clinton appointee at that) and trying
> to
> > pass it off as the "latest ruling"?


idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Voter____ ()
Date: December 14, 2010 08:57AM

I love being lectured about productivity, coherency, and work by somebody who spent years in prison for selling drugs. How about you paying back some of my tax dollars that went to supporting you while you were locked up? It costs over $20k a year to keep trash like you off the streets--how much is your bill?

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nice girl. Your soft, unproductive and self-hating
> suburban ass believes the government and the
> people who do work owe you something. Your posts
> reflect your childish mentality.
>
> You did buy drugs from me, didn't you? You should
> have quit when I went away, you'd be much more
> coherent now and may actually have some ambition.
>

Options: ReplyQuote
=
Posted by: WingNut ()
Date: December 14, 2010 09:06AM

The feds took more money from me in forfeiture than you'd probably save in 10 years. If you even had a decent job.

Now lets talk supply and demand,and the root of the problem that you libs so love when it suits you. You were a confused and spolied college kid who did drugs to fit in. Your mother was a divorced woman who liked to party. You two did the drugs, I did the time. Fairs fair I guess.

Now you're a bitter nobody trying to save the world with some feelgood politics learned from a gay sociology professor. And your mother is a perverted old hag in a tye dye probably working at a failed thrift store somewhere.

I'm the bad guy?


Voter____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love being lectured about productivity,
> coherency, and work by somebody who spent years in
> prison for selling drugs. How about you paying
> back some of my tax dollars that went to
> supporting you while you were locked up? It costs
> over $20k a year to keep trash like you off the
> streets--how much is your bill?
>
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > nice girl. Your soft, unproductive and
> self-hating
> > suburban ass believes the government and the
> > people who do work owe you something. Your
> posts
> > reflect your childish mentality.
> >
> > You did buy drugs from me, didn't you? You
> should
> > have quit when I went away, you'd be much more
> > coherent now and may actually have some
> ambition.
> >


idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2015 11:52AM by WingNut.


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: Creed ()
Date: December 14, 2010 09:09AM

Wingnut created his own prison.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Part of Obamacare Unconstitutional
Posted by: conVince ()
Date: December 14, 2010 09:19AM

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, that was a waste of two fucking years...

Agreed, while they let health insurance kompany executives write reform laws, and putting tax cheats in charge of the IRS, the demokrats squandered all of that time, all of that promised hope and paid cars and mortgages. The unemployment rate is worse off. Nice job demokrats. Now our judicial system gets to be clogged up undoing all of the efforts to destroy American quality of life.

------------------------------------

twitter @EyeAmU

Options: ReplyQuote


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
  *******    ******   ********  **     **   ******  
 **     **  **    **  **        **     **  **    ** 
        **  **        **        **     **  **       
  *******   **        ******    **     **  **       
        **  **        **        **     **  **       
 **     **  **    **  **        **     **  **    ** 
  *******    ******   ********   *******    ******  
This forum powered by Phorum.