Obama Care- It's Bush's Fault!!!

[crustylicious]

Didn't he appoint John Roberts.   That's Chief Justice Roberts the deciding vote 
 
Roberts Rejects Partisanship in Backing Obama Health Law
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-28/roberts-rejects-partisanship-as-court-backs-obama-health-law.html
 

[magooch]

Why not Clinton, or Obama; they both appointed liberal pukes to the court too.  Anyway, if this decision helps fire up the conservatives for the coming election....

[mechanic]

Crusty, I've got to agree on this one.  It was Bush's fault.  More importantly, it shows that the court is not about literal interpretation of the constitution, and that they have become as politicized as everyone else in the beltway.
 
Ben

[SwampThing762]

Crusty, don't blow out the over-inflated tires on the victory lap.   The designation as a tax grants a second bite at the apple, both in Congress and the courts.  Oops....I guess your Obama media didn't tell you that.

ST762

[magooch]

So TM, tell us how Bush's appointment of Roberts worked against "we the people."  Doesn't Obama consider himself part of the people?  Isn't he the savior of the unwashed masses.  If Bush was so much for the haves and the have mores, why would he appoint someone who wouldn't vote reliably in favor of them.  Yesterday's ruling from the Supreme Court was anything but that which favors the haves and have mores.
 
I would like to think that Roberts had some higher motive in making the stretch decision that he did, but I would rather that he had just stuck to the Constitution and not desperately grasped at a way to throw it back to the voters.  We won't know until November whether this will work out best for the country, or not.  What is for sure is that Obama and the Dumycrats won't be able to blame the Supreme Court for their ineptness.

[ironglow]

Didn't he appoint John Roberts.   That's Chief Justice Roberts the deciding vote 
 
Roberts Rejects Partisanship in Backing Obama Health Law
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-28/roberts-rejects-partisanship-as-court-backs-obama-health-law.html

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
  SURE....
   And
 
 1) Stopping an entire industry because of a "brown toad", sounds like Millard Fillmore
 
 2) The Solyndra funding was done by  Franklin Pierce
 
 3) The failed Fiskars auto was financed with public funds, by Calvin coolidge
 
 4) Kicking the National Day of Prayer out of the capitol, was done by Ulyssys S Grant
 
 5) Business killing regulations by the EPA were devised by James Buchannan
 
 6) Nobody ever played the "race card" quite like George Washington
 
 7)  Harry Truman continually insisted that congress vote on bills, " so they can find out what's in it".
 
  It is said that John Quincy Adams was the one who claimed.." this is a big f_ _ _ _ _ _ _ deal !".
 
 9) The first future pres to vote for killing live babies left from a botched abortion, was Thomas jefferson
 
 10) .....And the famous "crotch salute" was devised by James Madison...or was it Dolley ?

[crustylicious]

Every inane list is incomplete unless it mentions Obama's Kenyan birth or calls for John Allen Muhammed's execution!

[Doublebass73]

Electing a Republican president does not guarantee a conservative supreme court justice. Reagan, Bush I and now Bush II have each contributed a liberal to the SCOTUS.

[mcbammer]

Selecting   a   Supreme   Court   Justiss  is   like   a  box   of    chocolates  you  never  know   what   your   gonna  get. !

[cwlongshot]

[scootrd]

I posted this elsewhere nut will post here as well -

The mandate was a republican conservative idea . (you know when republicans were actually conservative and not extremist right wingers that I don't even recognize). The mandate was proposed by the heritage foundation and supported by Republicans. It was their response and alternative to the Dems proposing single payer. So finally the dems relented and said ok you convinced us we will adopt your idea for a mandate. OH boy all of a sudden their now against their own idea,

If the Republicans had kept pushing for the mandate as they did initially when it was their idea,  and then if the Supreme court ruled against it .  Then all these so called republicans on GB would have been up in arms because it didn't pass.

It's more about any partisan win on both sides then doing what's right. This whole issue is just crap.  As McConnell said " number one priority is to make Obama one term" . hey that's fine politically . but to sell your beliefs down the river to do it just shows me , all politicians are corrupt.

Republican Party is just so lost and hijacked nowadays by nut jobs it's ridiculous.  The MANDATE WAS THEIR IDEA. 

POLITICIANS ARE WHACKED.

As far as Reagan  -  As gov he wanted to hand everyone a broom to sweep the streets to earn their welfare check.
I don't think he would have a problem with the mandate. It's called taking personal responsibility and carrying your own weight in society, if your not willing to do so and want to stick everyone else with your tab , then your not taking taking it.   - JMHO

[BCarp]

So, Scoot, you like this mandate.  I understand your reasons - deadbeats, and all.  But, where would you draw the line on Federal gov't mandates?  Would you keep justifying them until every aspect of your life is guided and controlled by elites in a far-off capitol?  Is that really what you want?  Because that's the path we're going down, slowly but surely.  240 years of 'lawmaking' have surely eroded our freedoms, and it proceeds apace. 
 
I fear we are becoming a nation of weaklings who actually WANT the all-powerful government to hold their hands from cradle to grave.  I could be infuriated, but it mostly makes me sad....

[mechanic]

My water is regulated by the government.  My food is regulated by the government.  My taxes are levied by the government, and it legally "owns" all money.  My car is regulated by the government.  If I want to live in my house, I have to pay the government.  Now they control my healthcare as well.  The ruse that they were doing this to cover the uninsured is just that, a ruse.  Less than a hundred yards from my house is the county health department.  Poor or uninsured get routine health care that based on income, and regardless of income.  For most who go there it is free.  If they go to the ER, and are indigent, it's free, (to them).
 
This is a power grab, that is working well.  There will come a point, and I believe we've already passed it where there is no going back.
 
This is not a republican democrat thing.  It's much bigger than that, as both sides seem in collusion to me.
 
I never believed in all the conspiracy theories until lately....now they make sense.
 
Blaming Bush, blaming Obama.....we're wasting our time. 
 
Ben

[mcbammer]

Nobody   seemed   to   kick    about    mandatory    car    insurance  when   that   was   forced   upon  us   .   That   seemed  to   slid    right   on   by  .   Obama    compares   his   healthcare   plan   to   car   insurance  .   The   slippery   slope   is   now   prepared.  What  s   next?

[twoshooter]

Good post. Ever since the first hairless ape picked up the first pointy stick and jabbed another and went HHMmmm....... at the results, there has been someone in control, of tribes, of villages, of cities, states, countries and empires. To pretend that freedom actually exists is a pretty big stretch in and of itself. Some  governments are more benign, less onerous, but they are there. Our problem today is not the loss of freedom, is is the increasing difficulty of maintaining our illusion that we were free. If you want to know about actual freedom, I would suggest reading Paul (the apostle- not Ron) Or Kris Kristofferson (Bobby McGee )

[BCarp]

Good post. Ever since the first hairless ape picked up the first pointy stick and jabbed another and went HHMmmm....... at the results, there has been someone in control, of tribes, of villages, of cities, states, countries and empires. To pretend that freedom actually exists is a pretty big stretch in and of itself. Some  governments are more benign, less onerous, but they are there. Our problem today is not the loss of freedom, is is the increasing difficulty of maintaining our illusion that we were free. If you want to know about actual freedom, I would suggest reading Paul (the apostle- not Ron) Or Kris Kristofferson (Bobby McGee )

Of course there is no absolute freedom.  There are responsibilities, ethics, and laws - both natural and devised.
 
But, the American of today is a far cry from one two centuries ago, liberty wise.  And the erosion continues.  To what end?  Question to "progressives": what are we progressing towards?  Benign totalitarianism with your chosen elites at the top, deciding what's "best" for the ignorant remainder of us?
 
No thanks...!

[ironglow]

Every inane list is incomplete unless it mentions Obama's Kenyan birth or calls for John Allen Muhammed's execution!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
  You can mention those if you want Crusty...
     Meanwhile there are plenty of insane things the "annointed one" has done to keep the rest of us busy, until he finds new work.  Of course, someone will have to explain to him what real work is !
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
  Doublebass;
  True, upon occasion Republicans have appointed liberal judges....but common sense tells us an 85% chance is better than no chance at all.

[magooch]

Trying to compare mandatory auto insurance to mandatory health care insurance misses the mark by a mile.  At least in my state, you are only made to carry liability auto insurance.  That only insures that you might cover damages that you cause to others.  You aren't forced to buy health care insurance to cover folks you might damage.   
 
There is also a big difference between favoring some kind of plan that would cause folks to provide themselves with health care coverage and the government forcing you to buy it.  It might be a difference without distinction in some peoples minds, but nevertheless the difference is night and day--freedom and imperialism.
 
 

[ironglow]

Trying to compare mandatory auto insurance to mandatory health care insurance misses the mark by a mile.  At least in my state, you are only made to carry liability auto insurance.  That only insures that you might cover damages that you cause to others.  You aren't forced to buy health care insurance to cover folks you might damage.   
 
There is also a big difference between favoring some kind of plan that would cause folks to provide themselves with health care coverage and the government forcing you to buy it.  It might be a difference without distinction in some peoples minds, but nevertheless the difference is night and day--freedom and imperialism.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
  Driving is a voluntary choice...it's that simple...

[mechanic]

So far I haven't been forced to buy auto insurance for those that don't or won't have it.
 
Ben

[nomosendero]

So far I haven't been forced to buy auto insurance for those that don't or won't have it.
 
Ben

Correct, the comparison is apples & oranges, just as in pre-existing conditions for Health Insurance. This eliminates the high risk exclusions or high risk rates for those involved & is spread to everyone. For example, with car insurance if a person has druck driving on his record, he is dropped or pays a very high rate, it is not passed to all members. If it is, the rates MUST increase for all. It's simple, rates must go up and dramatically!!

[powderman]

So far I haven't been forced to buy auto insurance for those that don't or won't have it.
 
Ben

 
Good point, just say it quietly, we don't  want to give the obama supporters any more ideas. POWDERMAN. 

[gypsyman]

Driving on a public road is a privilege, not a right. Here in Ohio, it's mandatory to have car insurance, as it should be. If involved in an accident, and it's not your fault, you, or your insurance company shouldn't have to pay to fix your car. On the other hand, having health insurance is a right.You should be able to decide for yourself if you want it. Not forced into having to pay for it. Like Obama care.  This will just make it alot more expensive for the people and business's in extra tax's. Once again, the working class will be picking up the tab for people on food stamps and welfare. In the next 3 weeks, I'm sceduled for hip replacement on the left side. I have to cover the first $4000, before my insurance kicks in. This will be done thru a health savings account, my wife and I set up several years ago. The money put into the HSA is tax deductable. It is put in by her and I, not a company. This is one way we could afford the monthly premiums.
As far as it being Bush's fault, to a degree it is. When he was president, he mentioned tort reform, and opening up the possiblity of insurance company's selling health insurance across state lines. It would cut down alot on costs, if a person sueing a doctor and winning 3 millions dollars for something simple. And, hospitals charging $5 for one asprin, becasue they say their making up for the patients that don't pay. Yep, he could have done something. But, he didn't, and now we the have other side of the pendulum. Instead of a Republican trying to cut costs and eliminate waste's, we have a Democrat forcing everbody to raise the anty in this runaway card game. gypsyman

[m-g Willy]

Didn't he appoint John Roberts.   That's Chief Justice Roberts the deciding vote 
 
Roberts Rejects Partisanship in Backing Obama Health Law
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-28/roberts-rejects-partisanship-as-court-backs-obama-health-law.html

That's as smart as saying S&W is at fault for the bank being robbed because the perps used a gun they made.

[ironglow]

Every inane list is incomplete unless it mentions Obama's Kenyan birth or calls for John Allen Muhammed's execution!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
   Crusty;
       I did make a mistake on the date of the execution of the terrorist J.A. Muhammad..I also manned up and admitted it.
 
  We're still waiting for you and some others to "man up" and admit your mistake in voting for the Marxist !        

[DDZ]

Didn't he appoint John Roberts.   That's Chief Justice Roberts the deciding vote 
 
Roberts Rejects Partisanship in Backing Obama Health Law
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-28/roberts-rejects-partisanship-as-court-backs-obama-health-law.html

What do liberals keep bringing Bush into every discussion for? Do you like to pretend that Bush was a conservative, because he was a republican? Bush was a new world order person that got elected under the disguise of a conservative. They were all deciding votes. Unless one has more say so than the other. 
I think Roberts just got to vote once. Who can we blame Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan for? Why not blame Bush, liberals blame him for everything else.

[BBF]

So far I haven't been forced to buy auto insurance for those that don't or won't have it.
 
Ben

I'm not so sure Ben.
In the three Provinces I have lived in and drove, my Insurance policies cover me for damages done by uninsured drivers. I believe this is a Govt. mandate but am not sure of this.
 
Since Insurance Co. have that liability I would presume your premium has that little " extra" calculated in it.
 Perhaps your State has no such requirement.

[scootrd]

What do liberals keep bringing Bush into every discussion for? Do you like to pretend that Bush was a conservative, because he was a republican? Bush was a new world order person that got elected under the disguise of a conservative.

Yep same as Romney. a new world order person trying to get elected under the disguise of a conservative.

[ironglow]

What do liberals keep bringing Bush into every discussion for? Do you like to pretend that Bush was a conservative, because he was a republican? Bush was a new world order person that got elected under the disguise of a conservative.

Yep same as Romney. a new world order person trying to get elected under the disguise of a conservative.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
   I suggest that's better than a communist/Muslim pretending that he is a American/Christian..

[subdjoe]

In every controversial 5-4 decision we see someone labeled as "the deciding vote."  How do you know WHICH of the five was the one which tipped it?  All five were the "deciding vote," not just one.  We've seen a few decisions in the past decade where "the deciding vote" was one of the leftist judges voting with the center and right.  Heck, there was one case, King v. Kentucky, in which Ginsberg cast the lone dissenting vote, and I agreed with her point of view - something rare, I assure you.   

Cite as: 563 U. S. ____ (2011) 1
GINSBURG, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 09–1272
KENTUCKY, PETITIONER v. HOLLIS DESHAUN KING
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
KENTUCKY
[May 16, 2011]
JUSTICE GINSBURG, dissenting.
The Court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement indrug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neu-tral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample timeto obtain a warrant. I dissent from the Court’s reduction of the Fourth Amendment’s force.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees to the people “[t]heright . . . to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against un-reasonable searches and seizures.” Warrants to search, the Amendment further instructs, shall issue only upon a showing of “probable cause” to believe criminal activity isafoot. These complementary provisions are designed toensure that police will seek the authorization of a neutral magistrate before undertaking a search or seizure. Excep-tions to the warrant requirement, this Court has ex-plained, must be “few in number and carefully delineated,” if the main rule is to remain hardy. United States v. United States Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Mich., 407
U. S. 297, 318 (1972); see Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 31 (2001).