"If everyone in America was very very pleased with his or her health insurance and had no complaints and had access to quality affordable health care in our country, it still would have been necessary for us to pass the health care reform bill..." - Former Speaker of the House and Ignorer of the Will of the People - Nancy Pelosi
Translation, "We Democrats don't care that most people were pretty much happy with their health care. We could not allow this to continue when the opportunity existed for us to ignore the Constitution and usurp 20% of our national economy in taking over health care to bend it to our own federal dictates in serving 'the common good'."
And she STILL has not figured out why the American populace threw her and her corrupt progressives out of controlling the House of Representatives for their arrogance and abuse of power against the will of the people. Amazing!
19 comments:
Yeah, we had NO problems with our health care system. Ever notice where we're ranked in the world? Or does our "exceptionalism" automatically trump that?
Jim, I never claimed our health care system didn't have problems.
I simply said it was not "broken".
It absolutely can be improved through reforms such as allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, making sure that insurers cannot refuse to serve a patient that has paid his premiums, tort reform etc.
As for the caliber of our health care, I think I will take my chances with America, as evidently will Saudi royalty and Canadian Prime Ministers, despite their abilities to go ANYWHERE in the world for their care, sir.
Mr. Paine
With all due respect, the healthcare bill was not unconstitutional unless Medicare and social security are.
If you oppose the bill, that is one thing. Trying to make it unconstitional to support that opposition is quite another.
Also, Pelosi did not say reform was needed because people were happy. She said reform was needed because the way healthcare works is dysfunctional and inefficient.
Now I've done it!
Myste, I must say au contraire to thee!
Specifically the provision in the health care act that all Americans must buy health insurance is absolutely un-constitutional. Even District Court Judge Hudson recently ruled to that effect:
http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com/2010/12/federal-judge-declares-key-part-of.html
I would further argue that the entire concept of the health care bill is un-constitutional as there is not a provision in the constitution that authorizes congress to enact such legislation.
Yes, that would also apply to medicare and social security too. And no sir, the good & plenty clause in the Constitution does not count as authorization, my friend! :)
Mr. Paine,
Imagine my surprise when you emphatically au contraired my opinion in God’s own Elizabethan tongue!
I am just sending you this to let you know that I have not forgotten you, sir. I simply have not decided whether it is better to lambaste your opinion with logic or with humor. Your opinion in this matter is really funny. However, I find myself wanting to present a logical alternative, just to see if you have an answer, though it is hard to imagine that you would. If I choose the purely logical route, then I must abandon the humor entirely, because it is hard to be funny without being fallacious.
As I utterly respected your opinion, please advise.
I knew it. My comment won't fit.
John, I appreciate your restraint and sense of decency, but by all means please give your full and accurate assessment of any given topic always.
I am certainly not infallible and perhaps you could conceivably prove that I am wrong and change my mind accordingly. It has even been known to actually happen. On this topic though, that mountain to climb makes Everest look like a mole hill, sir.
If your comment is too long, please break it up into smaller parts and post them consecutively. I have had to do so myself on occasion.
My original response is 15,700 characters. I believe blogger allows 4096 or something, like that, so I would have to break it into four equal parts.
I think I was babbling, as you religious folk would say. If I take some time later today and edit it, leaving only sensible content, I think may be able to fit it on a bumper sticker.
I will anxiously await your wisdom-filled response on a bumper-sticker, my friend!
Fear not. This task is still queued up. I had to use the time I had intended to devote to this teaching a blogger that Christianity is a polytheistic religion (and providing a theory as to why it was designed that way). Worry not, though. Hopefully tonight I will start trying to trim my thoughts into something more coherent (if I don’t end up drinking).
I am exceptionally curious to hear your take on why Christianity is a polytheistic religion.
Perhaps your explanation of the Trinity, I assume, is involved. Do please explain either by posting, comment, or email, sir!
A commenter at Mad Mike's "caused" me to write the article.
I think it will be scheduled to post there some time tomorrow, probably before noon. I posted the response as an article, not a comment.
I would not think I would have to explain it to a religious fellow like you. Don't you already know? I am sure you have had one-way conversations with a number of the Christian deities.
It is not there now and will not be there until tomorrow. I know that.
This URL will pull it up tomorrow:
http://madmikesamerica.com/author/john-myste/
Hmmm. The Christian God-head is comprised of the Holy Trinity. One God in three persons. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are all one, however. Christ is not made, but begotten of the Father through the Holy Spirit.
If you are refering to Saints, well they are absolutely NOT deities and should never be worshipped as such. You would have to look to our brothers and sisters of the Mormon faith for such a philosophy of men and women becoming gods, sir.
I agree with the second paragraph completely. The first paragraph a bunch of absurd nonsense. The third paragraph was a true as God himself.
Well, Paine, I had to use a new website to respond to your issue. I wrote a response that was really funny (or at least it amused me), but in writing it, I developed a more serious opinion, so I threw it away in favor of something dryer.
I consider your site the magazine and my article an op-ed response.
Judge Hudson’s recent legislation regarding Obama’s healthcare bill keeps coming up. Republicans could not be more delighted at the actions of their new star law-maker. That Mr. Hudson claims to think parts of Obama’s healthcare bill are unconstitutional seems to all but prove the assumption to all those who already disagree with the bill. On Hudson’s authority, they declare our federal healthcare law to be illegal and embrace the new law as written by legislator Judge Hudson. The most notable objection Hudson has is the right of a federal government to tax or penalize a citizen’s decision not to participate is interstate commerce. I only intend to address that issue, since by his own proclamation it is the “single question” that motivates him to act in this matter.
Hudson’s ruling is a delight to conservative republicans who now have incontrovertible proof that the new healthcare law was unconstitutional. The technical term for their evidence is called “Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.”
For the rest of the analysis, go here:
http://johnmyste.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/hudsoncare/
I will read the link you provided; however, I don't see how a district court judge ruling against the Affordable Health Care Act's mandate that all people must by health insurance is anything but valid.
The interstate commerce clause used as justification for this egregious law has stretched credibility well beyond its breaking point in my humble opinion. Regardless, Judge Hudson's ruling will undoubtedly not be the final decision as I am sure this will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS.
"I don't see how a district court judge ruling against the Affordable Health Care Act's mandate that all people must by health insurance is anything but valid."
I fully realize this. That is why I wrote the informative article to explain it.
I accept your gracious concession in this matter and will consider it closed.
I wrote more of a response on your posting regarding this, John.
You are rather quick in assuming I conceded to you, my friend! :) That would be a silly thing for me to do when facts are on my side, sir!
I am sorry to inform you, sir, that the facts that were on your side, just ran for the hills. You are standing in middle of the battle field with no allies. What you mistake for allies are, in fact, the enemies mortars drawing very near to your position.
Since those under your command have abandoned you, I will be gracious enough to call it a draw. I will withdraw my army of facts that is so large not even I know its numbers, if you take your lone soldier, yourself, and retreat.
Should you decide there is still some a little oompah in your drums, then you will find the battle here:
http://johnmyste.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/hudsoncare/#comments
Post a Comment