LizardKing

Or my favourite fictional Scot and guy I am currently modelling my life after, Lew Ashby: ha053Tfh_6k The thing is, one can model their life after a fictional character in Bangkok LOL! How cool is that?

You can't forget this guy... JUqJUH55zxQ

So the burning question is: how do you reconcile that forcing people to buy retirement annuities is OK but forcing them to buy healthcare insurance isn't?

HH, Cav and others against the health insurance mandate, let me ask your opinion of the previously proposed privatizing social security schemes?

But then there will be many, many more who want the operation but have no insurance. The law states that they must be treated, and the taxpayers and insurance holders (thru higher rates) pay for that. Hence our high rates now. Are you advocating rescinding that law? I am all for youth in Asia, errr, euthanasia as a viable choice.

State or Federal mandate, what's the fucking difference? You still gotta do it, so it is for all intents, the same thing. Every state has the auto insurance mandate, and the fishing license thing, so it may as well be federal. Heck, we'd save a lot of money by removing the redundancies if it were. OK, don't wanna buy health insurance? Then don't get sick. Oh, well, that's not possible, is it? Hence the mandate. But I'd be fine if they had a say, $5M bond option in there in lieu of insurance. That should cover a major organ transplant, aka worst case scenario. BTW, I personally have never understood this obsession with State stuff. Why the redundancy? Are you not an American? Are you not proud to be? Then why the extra layers of government? Seems silly and archaic to me.

Yet you seem to be OK with this judge throwing out a chunk of the Constitution. Or does this only apply to things you don't like? And you obviously do not understand the provisions of the Interstate Commerce nor the Necessary & Proper Clauses. BTW, do you have car insurance? You have to buy that if you want to drive? How is this any different? Unless you can guarantee that you are not going to get sick, then you need insurance because legally you must be treated even if you cannot pay. Which law do you want to get rid of? The later? Wouldn't surprise me...AZ has and has sentenced over 100 people to death already this year. But as I said, I want Medicare for All, so this ruling is OK for me (even if wrong) as it will lead to that, taken to its logical conclusion. Oh, and all your boring arguments were made 40 years ago about Medicare and are just as wrong now as they were then...

How was copper wire invented? Two Scots fighting over a penny!

So let's go back to the merits of Hudson's ruling. He is basically ignoring precedent of the Necessary & Proper clause as defined since at least before the Marshall court's days. The clearest explanation of that that I have read is that [color:purple]"the very idea of the Necessary and Proper Clause is that it permits Congress to do things that are not authorized under its enumerated powers if they are rationally related to doing things that are, so long as they are not prohibited by some other provision in the Constitution. So it is simply fallacious to claim that if the individual mandate is not itself a valid exercise of the commerce power, it cannot be permitted under the Constitution because it is necessary and proper to something else that is. Because Judge Hudson collapses the Necessary and Proper Clause inquiry with the question of whether the individual mandate is itself a valid exercise of the commerce power, he does not even consider its relation to the guaranteed issue requirement of the ACA. That requirement is clearly a valid exercise of the commerce power, and absent some other prohibition in the Constitution, the individual mandate is plainly necessary to its implementation. Instead, Judge Hudson concludes that the individual mandate is prohibited by the Commerce Clause because it is not permitted. In so doing, he reads the Necessary and Proper clause right out of the Constitution."[/color] Isn't that even beyond what you GOPers call "judicial activism" and that you hate so much? In reality, I'm not so opposed to this ruling. For Hudson himself conceded that striking down the individual mandate would not invalidate the whole ACA. If you strike the individual mandate but leave the rest, you have a system that could easily be patched up with a better mechanism to avoid free-riding with a government plan ala Medicare which is what we wanted all along. The real loser here is the health insurance lobby. Health insurers would have preferred to avoid any health care reform at all. But the health insurance lobby's second-highest priority would be a working system with an individual mandate. A world in which they cannot discriminate against sick people but in which healthy people can avoid buying insurance until they're sick is a nightmare for them. Som nam na I say, for they made their bed with their greed. And to you, I say: be careful what you wish for as you may just get it LOL!

So you'd rather your employees get off work early and not finish their jobs? Man, can I came work for you? BTW, I'll need 26 weeks of holiday, and 21 weeks of personal days. But full pay, of course. That's OK, right? You're such a nice boss!! While history will be laughing at the GOP and those who followed them in the 2000s, they'll be singing praises of Pelsoi who has been one of the most effective House majority leaders ever. Hence why she makes you piss your pants.

Sorry gramps, wrong again. Roger Vinson -- ...was nominated to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan on September 9, 1983 to a seat vacated by Lynn C. Higby, was confirmed by the Senate on October 4. What about the 13 who dismissed it as being without merit without it being heard? Overwhelmingly GOPers. Besides, who appointed you does not make or break ethics in this case. Getting money from a lobbying firm who is actively against the thing you are judging and who also works for the prosecutor, however, is (in anyone opinion but your's that is ). Hudson is not only unethical for hearing the case, it now appears that he simply chooses to ignore parts of the Constitution. Putting Hudson's background aside, it's the reasoning of his decision itself that continues to be the point of an even larger controversy. The crux of his ruling came down to this main point: [color:purple]If a person's decision not to purchase health insurance at a particular point in time does not constitute the type of economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, then logically an attempt to enforce such provision under the Necessary and Proper Clause is equally offensive to the Constitution.[/color] That's a rather bizarre legal analysis. He's basically saying that the N & P clause in the Constitution is meaningless and should be ignored. The argument from the Obama administration is straightforward: the Commerce Clause empowers the federal government to regulate interstate commerce; the American health care system is interstate commerce; and the Affordable Care Act regulates the health care system. As such, the ACA fits comfortably within the confines of the Commerce Clause. What about those who don't want to buy insurance, but would have to under the mandate? Since individuals get sick and receive medical care whether or not they have healthcare coverage (and whether or not they can pay for it), a decision not to buy health insurance has a significant effect on the healthcare market. Therefore, forcing people to buy healthcare coverage is a reasonable provision in a bill meant to regulate the healthcare market. But what's really funny is that this whole thing is a GOP idea, meant to support big biz, proposed by Orrin Hatch and developed by Heritage in 1994 and put into actual use by Romney in MA a few years back. More of those pesky ethics again: if the Dems like it the GOP can't, even if it is their idea. Me, I'd rather have single payer like Medicare and optional additional private insurance if one so wanted. But this is what you GOPers wanted, so here ya go.

Funny thing is that the Dems call out their own and if a member is doing something not good, they bust them for it very publicly. Hence Rangel and Waters. However, the GOP does not do such a thing, and just sweeps any & all under the rug. Too many to list (the dozen K Street lads, Ensign, etc.). This Hudson thing was just the latest. The GOPers actually want to kill or severely downsize the ethics committee now that they are in charge (gee, there's a surprise!): http://www.congress.org/news/2010/12/02/watchdogs_urge_gop_not_to_downsize_ethics_office You tell me who has the ethics. And no, the answer is NOT they are both the same.

Robin & the Seven Hoods. Classic Americana. Frankie, Deano, Sammy, the Bingster, Edward G Robinson, etc. Very fun. T'was the vehicle for Sinatra's famous Sammy Cahn written "My Kind of Town." Peter Falk was in it too, and you could see that this movie is where his Columbo TV character came from.

Of course 13x it has been dismissed as a non-starter and twice ruled constitutional. But hey, as we learned in 2000, not even the SCOTUS is impartial and if one looks hard enough, they will find a judge who'll happily be an "activist" for "his party." Even tho' he's not supposed to have one. But that's just silly details, innit? Under the circumstances, today's ruling wasn't exactly a shocker. Let's meet Judge Hudson... That prediction is built partly on Hudson's roots in Republican politics. He was elected Arlington's commonwealth attorney as a Republican, briefly ran against U.S. Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.) in 1991 and has received all of his appointments -- as U.S. attorney, as a Fairfax County Circuit Court judge in 1998 and to the federal bench in 2002 -- from Republicans. [...] It is somewhat unusual for a federal judge to give an interview in the midst of a major case. But Hudson has always been known for his willingness to step into the public light. In the 1980s, President Reagan appointed him chairman of the Meese Commission, a controversial group that investigated the effects of pornography.... In the 1990s, Hudson had his own radio show and made regular appearances as a television legal analyst. [...] Judge Hudson’s financial disclosure forms show that from 2003 through 2008, Judge Hudson received “dividends†from Campaign Solutions Inc., among other investments. A Republican online communications firm, Campaign Solutions, has done work for a host of prominent Republican clients and health care reform critics, including the RNC and NRCC (both of which have called, to varying degrees, for health care reform's repeal). The president of the firm, Becki Donatelli, is the wife of longtime GOP hand Frank Donatelli, and is an adviser to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, among others. Another firm client is Kenneth Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia and the man who is bringing the lawsuit in front of Hudson's court. In 2010, records show, Cuccinelli spent nearly $9,000 for Campaign Solutions services. If Judge Hudson had any ethics (555555, sorry, I know, that's stupid because he's a GOPer!), he would have recused himself from this case.

I too think the Congresscritters should have the same plan as everyone else. Funny how the GOPers against Obamacare certainly have not given up their government healthcare. Medicare for All (plus the option of additional private insurance should you want it ala the Oz model) is the answer.

Ya, cuz the GOP likes the death panel idea. Just ask Jan Brewer in AZ. How many people has she sentenced to death now? 100+? http://healthdiscussions.net/2010/12/04/arizona-death-panels It is just simply unAmerican to make sure all have access to healthcare. Fuck 'em, right HH? They shouldn't have gotten sick, right? But I'm sure that if the gummint cut off his Medicare, VA, SSI, CALPERS pension, police/fire protection, or whatever other "socialized" thing he takes advantage of, he'd be hypocritically screaming...

That would be my dream! But it will never happen. Too much money in insurance and they'll fight to the end to stop that.

Human nature: enough carrots and people will lose their radicalism LOL!

As far as the Ronnie thing & Iran, we just recently learned that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a fabrication, 45+ years after the fact. So I am still gonna go with that he likely did it because I think him (and his handlers) to be that much of a scumbag...

Damn! That Obama is one shifty dude...

He got fucked by Ray-Gun and the GOP on that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise#1980_Carter_vs._Reagan

Reagan #2? Ya, just stupid. Second worst POTUS after W. And a racist cunt. FFS, he kicked off his national campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi -- does anyone actually think that was a "mistake" rather than a statement? And he's thoroughly to blame for the nutty wingnut Xtians entrenched in gummint now. Carter a bad POTUS? Ya, just stupid. Look at GDP growth during tenure as an example. Add in Volcker and he's a genius. Both results in the poll are prime example of the "right-wing noise machine" and little bearing upon reality.

We MUST work out a PP1 and 2 arvo then! Or just a silly day at my condo. Whatever. It has been too long.

Uh, no it's not. It's right where you left it... V8lT1o0sDwI

Oh, I soooo loved that one!!!!