Florida judge wants an end to DOJ foot-dragging on Obamacare
Ill-informed lefties are greeting the news of Florida-based federal judge Roger Vinson’s stay on his own decision to strike down Obamacare as unconstitutional with glee.
Their glee is misplaced.
Vinson’s order today is an attempt to end the Justice Department’s foot-dragging on filing an appeal. The judge called out the White House shenanigans and set a deadline:
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled Thursday that implementation of the health law can proceed — but he gave the Obama administration just seven days to file an appeal.
Vinson issued a stay of his own Jan. 31 ruling that declared the entire health care reform law unconstitutional. He chastised the government for not interpreting that ruling as an immediate injunction to stop implementing the new law.
But in a twist, he said he interpreted the Justice Department’s request for clarity as a motion to stay, which he granted.
“Because the defendants have stated that they intend to file a subsequent motion to stay if I were to ‘clarify’ that I had intended my declaratory judgment to have immediate injunction-like effect (which I just did), I will save time in this time-is-of-the-essence case by treating the motion to clarify as one requesting a stay as well,” Vinson said.
Vinson criticized the Justice Department for not following normal procedure and requesting a stay.
“It was not expected that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to ‘clarify,’” Vinson wrote.
Vinson is trying to push the government into quickly resolving the case, requiring them to file an expedited appeal to the 11th Circuit or Supreme Court…
By now, the culture of contempt should always be expected by taxpayers, private businesses, and judges.
Your move, AG Eric Holder…
****
Ed Morrissey sums up: “Basically, this forces the Department of Justice to not only expedite the appeals process, which they were clearly hoping to avoid, but now to do so and to seek a stay of Vinson’s first ruling. The dilatory tactics that Vinson blasts in this ruling almost certainly won’t impress the appellate court, either. Furthermore, the order forces the Obama administration to fight on Vinson’s ruling first and now rather than wait for a more friendly set of rulings and hope to marginalize Vinson down the road.
The White House asked for a clarification. They got a trip to the woodshed instead, and a very short time frame to stop the halt to ObamaCare that Vinson’s ruling creates.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
May 22, 2012 04:35 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Illinois Republicans flirting with cigarette tax hike for Obamacare — and a reminder about Orrin Hatch
May 21, 2012 11:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsHigh school fined $15,000 for… selling soda pop during lunch
May 19, 2012 01:29 PM by Doug Powers
101 Comments
Destroying private health insurance was always the goal
May 16, 2012 09:40 AM by Michelle Malkin
43 CommentsObamacare cronyism: The First Lady’s patient-dumping, privacy-meddling scheme
May 16, 2012 08:56 AM by Michelle Malkin
102 CommentsInsurers issuing new round of rebates must credit Obamacare
May 14, 2012 11:26 AM by Doug Powers
66 CommentsWhite House to SCOTUS: ‘Extraordinary disruptions’ to Medicare if Obamacare struck down
May 4, 2012 02:03 PM by Doug Powers
86 Comments
Biden predicts Supreme Court will uphold Obamacare
April 1, 2012 12:49 PM by Doug Powers
63 Comments
Categories: Health care
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearRedstate
» Kimberlin’s Associates Caught on Tape?
Control guns. Control healthcare. Control climate. Control…whatever. You’ll notice they all use the same word. And that word never applies to the second word. It always applies to the unspoken word — people.
Question: Why is there never a headline that says “Government program ends as its intended goal has been achieved?”
ROTFLMAO
If 10 of the 20 people on your commune went on a hunger strike because of the scourge of Monosodium Glutamate in modern society, would it be a lie to say half your commune was going hungry?
I’d like to see that Kessler study. From what they say, it seem highly problematic to look at two high risk conditions (heart attacks and that other one) affecting a high risk population (the elderly) and think those micro numbers translate on a macro scale.
But in any case, thanks for the cite. It is at least potentially responsive to my query. Unlike the many, many before who cited to studies to cost savings for med mal insurance rather than health care costs.
The point is NOT that they are or are not eschewing insurance voluntarily. Or are or are not here illegally. Or whatever. Again, if you can show me how many of the uninsured do so because they can and do pay out of pocket for all medical costs, then I think that is a reasonable deduction to make from the total. And I don’t think it is relevant to single out the temporarily uninsured. It is not like that 10 million or whatever just come off the books after 4 months. They are replaced by other newly temporarily uninsured. Any of whom can get sick or injured or pregnant or whatever. If you consistently have that many people not carrying insurance, even if on an individual basis it is not that long, on the macro level, it amounts to pretty much the same thing.
Point being, No matter WHY they are uninsured, the rest of us end up paying for it just the same.
Demonstrably incorrect.
Young people without insurance do pay out of their own pockets. So do most of the temporarily uninsured or they put off something until they get insurance. Been there and done that.
The cost of illegals is avoidable. Get the illegals out of the country and replace them with legals who can take jobs with pay and benefits.
Chap, my objection to illegals from day one is not that they are here, but the fact as illegals they have to hide and are exploited by their employers. Our costs in terms of illegals can be better described as employer subsidies. Employers do not pay for their illegals healthcare. We do. Ever see the numbers for California?
My place of business is FULL of legal immigrants who have the same benefits as I have. And they are ZERO burden on the economy.
We are back at 10-15 million …..
Any evidence? Or just to satisfy your opinion? When you say ‘demonstrably incorrect,’ you need to demonstrate that it’s incorrect…with facts.
The uninsured on average, only pay about 37% of their costs. How does this break down between the groups? Don’t know. But I do know young people are not particularly flush with cash to pay for something catastrophic. DO you have any actual numbers to back up your assertion that they actually pay?
You can’t put off emergency care. And that is mainly what we are talking about.
And everyone gets a unicorn too!
I hope mine doesn’t get sick!
And who pays for that?! You libs just love to pander using my money!
Romneycare purposely decoupled the coverage issue with the cost containment because it was politically easier. Mass is now grappling with the other side. We’ll see how it does once the cost containment measures are implemented and have had some time to work.
I agree, and that’s why I was skeptical about the study. If the two authors said that the two risk conditions meant lower costs for people with those specific risk contidions, I might buy in. But I’d still want another study. And I really want one that ties all costs and factors together. Maybe there’s agenda-driven fear on both sides? Nah, that couldn’t be it.
(snicker)
You funny guy!
Have I got a unicorn for you!
Is it time for a drink yet?
I decided yes.
Chap, we can get 90% of the illegals to voluntarily leave the country within 18 months by simply enforcing the laws already on the books.
You know the same laws you should be familiar with as an officer of the court. Priority one to nailing employers of illegals.
Now when that happens and there is sufficent pain among the fat cats in business and politics, they will get off their single point of contacts and fit the system for LEGALS.
Illegal immigration is not brokem=n. Legal immigration is broken.
Chap, I support you fully on this one!
Only personal experience. When I was 20 (many moon ago) I started work (as they say on game shows) with a major oil company. At first, I wasn’t entitled to benefits because I wasn’t full time. I got injured playing flag football; not catastrophic but it did require stiches. I had to pay from my own pocket. It put a dent into my dating for a while — zero bux to spend on the lovelies; not to mention an obvious cut on my chin held together with those stiches.
When I got benefits, I chose the cheapest possible, because as you say, young people aren’t flush with cash. As I got older, married, had kids, my benefit needs changed and I chose my health plan accordingly.
Why do you want them to leave, voluntarily or otherwise, if your main “objection to illegals from day one is not that they are here, but the fact as illegals they have to hide and are exploited by their employers.”
Sounds like some sort of amnesty would be a much simpler solution to your objection.
Swear to god, when I first read this I read it as “zero sex.”
Which may have been true, and related, as well.
I wish everyone were this rational!
And speaking of drinks…just had a gin and juice (grapefruit) for lunch..Talk about a refreshing summer drink! (Althout it’s like 40 degrees in Seattle at this time)
These aren’t the reason medical costs are sky rocketing. It’s the major medical issues that occur to the uninsured, like my mom. Her bills were something like 250k upon her passing but she didn’t have insurance or assets. It’s not about the sticthes a 18 year old does/doesn’t pay out of pocket.
Finally a coherent thought.
Jeez, drunk already?
Not yet. But gearing up for the Syracuse/UVA Lax game in 30 minutes.
I have the Seattle Sounders/Portland Timbers MLS game here shortly..it’s dumping rain outside. How appropriate.
Oh, I agree.
But the original question covered young people not being flush with cash, which is true, and even minor medical procedures can put a dent in a young persons economic life. I know that from personal experience.
When my second son was born, it took my wife and me a long time to pay off that debt. My first son was born via c-section while we had Kaiser. Cost us $5 for everything.
Just sayin’.
Yes it was. Scarface happened because his looks got dented for a bit and it was tough trying to impress the foxes (remember?!) that it was due to some manly pursuit rather than hitting some guys fist with my face while trying to avoid a block. They were smart enough to see through any charade so I just avoided contact altogether.
Obamacare is not about providing health insurance or health care or reducing costs. Its all about power and control.
Bottom line is if you are sick, you need to pay for your care or not get any. Some choose to buy insurance to spread the cost. Some choose to self insure and pay for care as they need it. Some choose to insure for minor things and not major things.
Life is not fair. Everybody does not get the same things in life. No one is ever going to make that happen. They can posture and pretend they are going to but in reality, they are just empowering themselves and fooling those that believe them.
Yes, I may be cynical but its about equal opportunity not equal results. Who is looking into how these uninsured spend their money? Who controls their budget? Their lifestyle choices? Where do they live? Do they have a car? Do they work hard or are they lazy and lose jobs because they get drunk and don’t go to work? Maybe they gamble it all away. Do they smoke, drink? Are they overweight? Do they have a bad diet?
Maybe they chose to not get an good education because they didn’t want to and now they have a low paying job and somehow can’t afford all kinds of things, including medical care. So they want me to buy it for them. Yeah, I’ll bet they do. We all make choices in life and we all die. This debate is not about fairness, its all about power and control for the elites.
Here’s another study:
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/offbeat/study-staring-at-breasts-increases-heart-health-20110304
Correct, and apparently taken as granted because:
People don’t have the right (under this worldview) to abstain from commerce. This is Wickard v. Filburn all over again. Ultimately this is an view that the Commerce Clause coupled with the Necessary and Proper Clause trumps the rest of the Constitution.
This is (quite simply) a tyrannical view.
First O/T. You inspired me to two maragritas last night. I thank you.
Good question. They need to go for the same reason that we prosecuted bootleggers arrested one month before Prohibition was lifted.
Chap, in my opinion we are where we are because we have leaders who will not take the hard path. The illegals here are lawbreakers and they do not merit a pass.
This, “let’s just do the easy thing” is why we have fought five wars and lost tens of thousands of dead since WW II while no one in the government demanded we go through the process to enact a declaration of war as the Constitution requires.
It was too easy to send people off to war and fight for ties. That is how you end up with 58,000 names on a wall with nothing to show for it.
That’s why Chap. If something significant can be done easily, it is probably not the right way. By the book; follow the law. If the law is not right, change it the right way. Do not ignore it for the sake of expedency.
My opinion.
I don’t think comparing the bootlegger to the illegal alien is the right analogy. Wouldn’t the alien be more like the 20′s era hard working stiff who just wanted a drink after work? Would you prosecute them? Or are they more a victim of the system than criminal?
Actively, consistently, continuously enforcing existing laws will send the message that we are serious about our laws. Changing them to accomodate people breaking them sends the opposite message. And not just to those already here. Millions are waiting to see which tack we take. Amnesty will set off a stampede like we have not seen before. Enforcement will start the flow in the other direction as the jobs and benefits dry up. Those pushing for amnesty are for surrendering to the demands of the illegal aliens and their employers, abandoning the rule of law and surrendering our sovereignty. We should not change the laws to suit those breaking them.
We need Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement, not reform. We need to restore respect for the law and the faith of the American people that their government is not selling them out. Amnesty for the illegal aliens is also amnesty for the corrupt companies who have been employing them. Money trumps everything, including love of country. Multi-nationals have no loyalty to country by definition, they see us as a market, not a nation. They see people as workers, documented or undocumented, no difference. If they can’t send the work to where the labor is cheaper, then they want to bring the cheap labor here. If citizenship becomes meaningless, this is no longer The United States of America.
If we love our Constitution and our representative Republic and we intend to keep it we must not surrender our sovereignty or abandon the rule of law. Profits must not supercede security. We should not create a new path to citizenship. We have a path to citizenship, more generous than any other country, illegal aliens have ignored it and bad choices do have consequences
“We all make choices in life and we all die.”
This is one time when the ‘let people be free to suffer the consequences of their poor choices’ idea crashes and burns.
We, as the society we now are, are not going to accept people dying in the street for lack of medical care, no matter how irresponsibly the dying person may have gotten themselves there.
The libertarian might say, “Then the bleeding heart who can’t stand seeing the fool or unlucky sob dying can pick them up and pay for the medical care out of their own pocket.”
But that doesn’t work with expensive medical care. You can feed the starving bum a meal, but you can’t go around buying chemotherapy for strangers.
Oh, you can see people who could do it riding by the dying man in their stretch limosines and their Ferrari’s, but none of them are stopping to help you help the irresponsible dying person. If they were the kind of person who would do that in the kind of society that would let that happen, they wouldn’t be rich for long. They wouldn’t have even gotten rich.
What the ‘bleeding heart’ (most of us in a modern urban society) can do is force the government (faceless taxpayer) to give the dying guy the chemotherapy he needs. So that is what we do. And that is why we are now where we are at wrt medical care.
The real problem with obamacare is not that it forces people to buy, let’s say, basic, major medical, $5000 deductible medical insurance, perhaps withheld from paychecks the same way we do with ss and mc. The real problem is that it does much more than is necessary, and it creates a huge, unnecessary bureaucracy to do it.
And it does all of this on the federal level.
Yeah, so there may be a problem with the Constitution even if the states are doing it. If so, we can fix that. It’s called an Amendment. The question is what is the right thing to do given the real population that exists within the country, a population that absolutely will not accept the ‘let them die in the street’ kind of argument.
The principal is laws are to be followed and enforced as long as they are on the books.
The minute theses aliens entered the country illegally they became criminals. If they are using a false SSN they are felons.
I saw a man on the Discovery Channel the other night who committed a robbery, escaped capture, changed his identity, lived a modest, quiet, crime free life for 28 years until his actual identity was discovered. He is in prison. They merit the same treatment.
Start enforcing the law by raiding business and hauling off the owners in cuffs. Tell every illegal caught they can either leave the country or face prosecution.
Put out the word to the business community that we are coming to you soon. Business owners will start unloading their illegals. Up until now this has not been possible. These business owners pay “tribute” to the politicians who insure the laws do not get enforced.
Any illegal who arested for even a traffic violation is sent packing. Mayors and city councils of sanctuary cities get 30 days to be in compliance or the state police arrests them.
You will note that in each instance all I am proposing is that we follow the very laws our elected officials passed and immediately ignored.
Chap, Prohibition turned out to be a bad idea. Think what the country would be like if our forebearers had not followed the law, saw the results, and changed the law within the process. What would we look like today had they simply passed Prohibition and then ignored the law?
That is all I am proposing. I have faith in our legal system and frankly people like you, who work within that system. The Left does not. They would rather bypass it. We ignore our legal process at our own peril.
You imply that we have unfair, unjust immigration laws. I do not dispute your premise. My position is let’s follow the laws, discover what is and is not good and amend things within the process. If we do I contend we will end up with something we can all be proud of and like.
Virgina Patriot, I should have jsut sat back and let you articulate.
Well said.
Which is what charities are for, not governments.
I’m sorry, but whatever resource in economics you may talk about, it doesn’t belong to the voter to give to whomever he sees fit.
There has to be an understood difference between benevolence and government regulation. Period. We are already on the hook for an unthinkable, unsustainable, unimaginable amount of money. We have to start dealing with that, and not adding to the mess with more untouchable phony “rights”.
Although I am generally sympathetic to that argument, do you seriously believe charities could raise the kind of money necessary to cover even just a large percentage of those who could not afford expensive modern medicine?
The cost of modern medical treatment is not remotely similar to the cost of a meal or a used pair of shoes.
Anyway, my argument was primarily that we can not ignore the issue with a ‘people should have the right to fail’ argument, even if you did believe charities could pick up the slack to a degree most people would find acceptable.
If we try that, we will lose badly, politically, and you will end up paying for others’ medical treatment, like it or not.
We should support the states doing something like I suggested: Require workers to buy high deductible major medical coverage.
BTW, the driving moral force behind the New Deal was the total failure of charities. They were overwhelmed. And in that case people were just starving, not in need of dialysis or a liver transplant.
Then our country will go bankrupt and cease to exist. Like it or not.
But you said earlier (#198) that the uninsured “are huge drivers to the rising cost of health care.” If that’s the case, then getting them insured should provide its own cost containment. But Massachusetts is seeing the opposite happen. Why do you suppose that might be? And wouldn’t the answer contradict your assertion?
Yup. Which is why:
It is the same kind of issue that drove the creation of ss. Should people prepare for retirement, in the ideal libertarian world? Sure.
However, they do not. At least not nearly enough. We know that for a fact, even before the existence of the new moral hazard ss created.
So we require people to prepare for retirement to at least a small degree, no matter how much they think they need the money right now for something else.
We deal with people the way they really are, not the way we think they ought to be.
There is a very good, basic, rational reason the right gets its hiney kicked down the street and into the river every time it tries to go libertarian on ss.
Medical insurance/universal medical coverage in one way or another has become the same kind of issue.
Which leaves out the people who don’t work, and therefore doesn’t really solve anything.
You are talking in terms of what we should do as a society.
I am talking in terms of what we can do.
When should is outside the scope of can, it has to be reexamined, and redefined.
Sure it does. Partially. Just as ss only partially fixes the retirement problem.
I agree the recklessness of our governments has sharply limited our future choices.
These are not mutually exclusive. They are huge. Something to the tune of over $75 billion a year for totally uncompensated and/or government payments for the uninsured.
Obviously getting those people insured is going to mean two things: overall they are going to get better care, not ER patch ups, which should drive expenditures down over the long haul, something you wouldn’t see in just 6 years. But it also means that a lot of people are going to have to have their insurance subsidized, at least in the short term until other cost containers make it more affordable.
It all sounds good in theory, but I noticed the date on your link is 2004, before we all saw how RomneyCare wound up costing considerably more than was predicted.
The link is just to show the cost of uninsured, not anything to do with RomneyCare in particular. I am sure it is higher now, in any case.
How?
If I’m uninsured, and can’t afford the medical care I need, how do you pay for it? Just let me die in the gutter and it won’t cost you, except for normal garbage removal.
That is the most insidious form of enslavement. First comes the cry “people are suffering from X; we can’t let them just suffer (and maybe die!)”
So public funds are confiscated to provide care for X.
Then comes the legislation, based upon the acknowledgment that behavior Y affects problem X in some way, and since it now costs the public, the gov’t has the right and responsibility to regulate activity Y.
Except, the “government” is assuaging its conscience; that’s that’s the published reason for providing the care for X. What government gets for its investment is that warm-and-fuzzy feeling. So, the “government” needs to either accept that the “public” are going to pay for care for X, and let people do Y, or they’re going to just let the condition X run rampant and leave it up to individuals to deal with, and live without the warm-and-fuzzy.
Liberals need to stop trying to have it both ways.
Health insurance is not health care.
Well we don’t, nor should we, let people die in the gutter.
Um, I think ACTUAL slaves would disagree with this.
Here’s a radical thought; let’s stop expecting “retirement”.
At 75, my father died “on the wall” (laying brick).
I don’t expect to make it to 75, but if I do, I certainly have no expectation of retiring just because I get old.
Assuming I was worried about being able to spend the last years of my life sitting on my arse waiting to die, I need the money to survive today.
The minutes of my life belong to me. I am the sole arbiter of what should be done with those minutes, and for what they should be traded. To suggest that society has a right to dictate how I lead my life, because my life has some vague affect upon society is to expect me to apologize for my existence. Somehow, I “owe” the world control of my lifestyle.
Not… gonna… happen…
It purports to do more than that. It contains estimates of how much it would cost to insure them. Knowing how much that is is critical to knowing how much the uninsured truly add (if at all) to our overall health care costs when all is said and done.
Inactivity, in this case.
Oh really? Do you know what happened to Rome in the 5th-6th centuries? The barbarians came screaming across the Rhine. The small land owners and others ran to the large estates for common protection.
After the barbarian threat ended, they were not allowed to return to their property, which now belonged to the large estate owner, in reparation for providing protection from barbarians. Entire families of free people became slaves.
I know, I know, to liberals like you, slavery began in colonial America and only affected black people, the Europeans who sold themselves into slavery just to get here notwithstanding.
If you think we shouldn’t let people die in the gutter, then don’t. But don’t use that as an excuse to control their lives.
Yes, really. Being hyperbolic only serves to weaken the rest of your argument.
Until the next time government has to step in and save us from the crisis.
Look. I see what you’re saying. Dismantling the entitlement system is going to cause real pain, but there isn’t any alternative.
We can talk about what “civilized societies” will and won’t allow. We can talk about what will hurt who in elections, but at the end of the day this spending, and this attitude of entitlement is unsustainable, and that is all that matters.
Excellent post.
I’m sure the people of Rome never thought their society would fail, either.
The gov intervention into health care and health insurance has caused many of the problems we have today. More gov intervention with this health care bill won’t solve it either. From the very beginning, health insurance should have purchased like every other type of insurance. If the employee owned the policy, then that employee could take it from job to job. The pre-existing condition thing would be less of an issue.
Why have state legislator deciding what should be contained an insurance policy? Why should my employer decide what plans can be offered if I’m paying all or part of that policy? Why does the gov get to restrict the sale of plans across state lines and then decide to make me buy an approved policy using the commerce clause to justify both conditions? How does taxing expensive health care plans lower the cost of health care? Taxing medical supplies won’t reduce cost medical care either.
The gov will succeed in making the public buy policies that in the end, no doctor will have to accept.
Hiraghm, you do not understand why most people retire. They retire because they cannot work any more. It’s too damned hard. Most old people become quickly exhausted when doing strenuous tasks, even tasks that are just mentally strenuous.
Some old people don’t wear out like that. Maybe your dad was one of them, or maybe he was just better than most at hiding it until he collapsed and died.
Most do wear out. Their bones break more easily, and they run out of breath quickly. Yes, even the ones who exercise. That is what getting old means. Function is impaired. Hearing and eyesight often don’t do so well, either.
So if you don’t prepare for retirement because you think you will be able to work, but then you cannot, someone else will end up helping you.
You could say they don’t have to help you. They can just let all of the desperate, dying, starving old people die in the streets.
That was happening in the Great Depression. Most Americans decided that was a bad way to go.
So, since our society has no way of easily telling ahead of time which of us are highly capable and highly responsible and are not going to be too unlucky in life, even those of us who rankle at the coercion are required to put a tiny amount of our initial earnings into a federally guaranteed system of retirement that is important for the overwhelming majority of people.
But you think that is oppression. Cue the violins.
Your position loses, Hiraghm. Any politician you try holding to that standard won’t even get out of the starting gate. Hell, he won’t even get to the gate.
Good thing I wasn’t, then.
Have you ever compared the cost of individual policies with group policies? Work is pretty much the only social structure most individuals have in which to take advantage of efficiencies in bulk purchasing.
Then you have truly lost any sense of perspective. Sad.
BS
Most people who retire do so because they
.
But nothing in nature says people have the right to retire, or can retire.
Which part of NO EFFING CHOICE don’t you get? “Oh, gee, I won’t prepare for retirement because I’ll be able to work at 75 with colon cancer”…
More BS. You can’t save for retirement if you need those funds to EAT TODAY. Get it?
In my father’s case it was me who helped when he got old. So what? There’s nothing wrong with charity.
Don’t even pretend to think to lecture me about people wearing out. 5th generation mason, started 3 weeks before I turned 12, I know all about being worn down. That’s why I left the profession. Yes, my father was very good at covering up his condition, using only Bayer Aspirin to combat the pain of the colon cancer that ate him alive as he continued to work.
It’s oppression when you take that money from me and I need it to EAT. Or to get myself out of my impoverished condition. Not everybody starts out with a cushy union job. Not everybody ends up with a cushy union pension.
Then we can look forward to financial Armageddon in our near future.
Mondamay, you are not really seeing what I am saying. I am not saying repairs are not necessary. Look at what I actually suggested regarding medical care. It does not involve government spending more money.
My point is that those are the kinds of solutions we should be looking at so we do not end up in a total meltdown.
If we do not present the people with alternatives other than “toughen up quick or die, sucka!” cataclysmic failure will be a certainty.
You don’t want to play this game with me, Chap, especially now while I’m still mad about your buddy Roland’s ignorant commentary.
Just because you think citing history is hyperbolic doesn’t make it so. It’s merely your opinion, which, based upon you past opinions, is worth about the effort it would take to squirt out a load of diarrhea, and about as worth examining.
Yes, it certainly would be.
It is outrageous how many people die of starvation because of social security withholding.
You should see Chap about that “hyperbole” there.
I do know my current financial situation would be extremely better were it not for the social security taxes that were taken from me.
I also do know that, during those other hard times of my life, I would have recovered more quickly and to a more advantageous position if I hadn’t had that money taken out.
Again, If you want to set aside part of your money for retirement, do so. You have NO RIGHT to require me to do so.
The fact that you’re squeamish about seeing people starve in the street is no defense for oppressing people by telling them “you *will* surrender a part of the fruits of your productivity for the government to mismanage until you reach an arbitrary age not based upon your ability to work, and can collect more than you paid in.”
If you don’t want to see old people starving in the streets, take your money and provide for them. But, don’t take over their lives because of your weak stomach.
What I did was the opposite of hyperbole.
You cannot know. You would be living in a whole different society in which you may have faced other demands on you brought on by the political consequences of all of those starving old people.
But I would rather not. I just recognize the practical political need for the program.
Not squeamish at all. I’m pointing to the practical politics of it.
Ah, well we are in agreement about the government’s egregious mismanagement of the system, and I understand the argument about how the government will always mismanage that kind of money.
I would do ss much differently.
Again, I don’t have a weak stomach, just a practical political awareness.
In an environment where state legislatures didn’t force people to purchase any more coverage than they wanted to pay for? I imagine it would be quite inexpensive comapared to what we’re currently saddled with.
Your trite little history parable has nothing to do with it. It is hyperbolic, and why don’t we throw in histrionic for good measure, to compare ACTUAL slavery with your overdeveloped victimization complex. That is not opinion. That is fact. And it just makes you look stupid.
It wasn’t a parable, it was… history. It’s what happened. Thanks for confirming what I already knew; in your mind “slavery” is only “slavery” if it involves southern planters and black slaves.
Just what do you think slavery is? Having to pick cotton?
Has there been any discussion about what the Judge will do if / when nerobama and gang ignore the order that they must file an appeal, or the stay is inoperative?
Yup, I have. I have dealt with insurance companies in 3 different states. I have had employers switch insurance companies from year to year. I have hated most of the plans. I’ve hate the whole “in net work” and “out of network” thing. I’ve had PPOs and other silly plans. All I want is a simple plan. I have had to pay for stuff I didn’t want and had fights with doctors ordering tests I didn’t need. We need a free market system, not this over regulated garbage we have to put up with. If I had saved all the money I paid for plans I didn’t want, I wouldn’t need insurance now. Most of my money was wasted!
You were using it as a parable, and a piss poor one, for whatever your perceived injustices are today.
I never said that. What I did say is that no matter what you think of the US or Obama or Democrats or our current health care system or whatever you imagine our health care system will develop into, it is absolutely idiotic to say that we are experiencing the “most insidious” form of slavery. That is so extreme as to defy credulity and insulting to anyone throughout history or today that has ACTUALLY been a slave.
I think maybe you need a dictionary, chap.
However oppressive Southern chattel slavery was, few people with a decent command of the English language would call it “insidious”.
I am well aware of what it means. I also possess some sort of sense of perspective. Something others here clearly lack.
Your comments strongly suggest otherwise.
But instituting socialism (or more socialism) is going to solve that problem? Chile privatized their retirement program 30 years ago. The people were told that they would get a return of around 4%. The actual return as of last year was over double that.
And a rhetorical question about allowing someone to die in the gutter –
Capitalism is morally evil because some old and seriously mentally ill homeless people once died, but a hundred million people killed by socialism were broken eggs necessary to make an omelet and pretty much deserved it for being such ungrateful dissidents that didn’t want to be “re-educated?”
Slaves lose everything in their chains, even the desire of escaping from them. Jean Jacques Rousseau
Tell me the difference between this and what the Great Society has produced? If allowed to go on unchecked Obamacare will produce the same results.
Consider the consequence if I am wrong. Constrast with what it means if you are wrong.
If you are wrong it will be measureable like it was in the former Soviet Union, when for the first time in modern history the life expectency of a modern nation dropped.
You also have to consider the probability of you being wrong versus me being wrong. I like my odds.
Then you have chosen to disregard the last 110 years of world history.
I choose not too.
Actually, no it’s not.
For socialism to develop the way it is intended, no one can own personal property. The entire point of socialism is that the gov’t owns everything and then gives what is produced to those that need it most. Sounds good, until you realize that if you own nothing, you are a slave. (Socialism makes nothing — they just redistribute what already exists.)
Remember, the most basic human right of all is the right to acquire, possess, and dispose of property at your free will. Anything less makes you a slave. (I do not count gov’t mandated things like property taxes, sales taxes, usage fees and the like. Some things are necessary for gov’t administration. Though I would like to see those reduced.)
Under socialism, the gov’t owns everything. Therefore, all people living under socialism are slaves of the gov’t. You can try to say that what is going on the U.S. isn’t true socialism, it’s more like Marxism-lite. But it’s still socialism. As was said previously, look at all socialist programs at their start vs. where they are now. You will see the indisious creep of socialism taking over. And eventually, like all socialist governments, it will devolve into some form of terror, usually mass murder, to keep the people in line lest they revolt against their masters.