Presidential Communication

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Those who voted for Obama are more foolish than most.

As to your point above, it's not the government's business what insurance anyone carries or what kind of policy they want: "Cadillac" plan, low coverage catastrophic only plan, whatever.

The power grab by Obama that he now seeks to sustain is unconstitutional - regardless of what the Supreme Court says. Read the Constitution and you will clearly see that taking over the citizens' health care, depriving them of choices and jacking their rates up a couple of hundred percent do not fit into the enumerated powers that the federal government has.

The government screwed this woman over - and it did not need to happen and never should have been considered.

I define dumber than most as someone desperately hanging on thinking that one party is better than the other. Talk about insanity.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

I define dumber than most as someone desperately hanging on thinking that one party is better than the other. Talk about insanity.

i agree. both parties are funded by the very rich. so there's a reason why all these laws pass, and who they're passed for.
when one considers who the other main candidate was in the most recent election, i'm not sure how anyone can say people who voted for obama are 'more foolish than most'. i didn't vote for either the douchebag or the turd sandwich. oh, what would happen if everyone picked 'c' in the next presidential run? what if the republiecans had found a better candidate? probably wouldn't matter-they are just as determined to insert themselves in health care issues.

As to your point above, it's not the government's business what insurance anyone carries or what kind of policy they want: "Cadillac" plan, low coverage catastrophic only plan, whatever. i agree. i think i've made that point more than once.

The power grab by Obama that he now seeks to sustain is unconstitutional - regardless of what the Supreme Court says. Read the Constitution and you will clearly see that taking over the citizens' health care, depriving them of choices and jacking their rates up a couple of hundred percent do not fit into the enumerated powers that the federal government has. since scotus ruled, i'm not sure how you can ignore their ruling, or say that govt insertion into health care is unconstitutional. and the govt has already been in the health business for years, with medicare and medicaid.

The government screwed this woman over - and it did not need to happen and never should have been considered. no. united healthcare opted to leave cali. but with the new govt rules, she can get coverage elsewhere, where beforehand she would have been left out in the cold due to pre-existing conditions.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

I define dumber than most as someone desperately hanging on thinking that one party is better than the other. Talk about insanity.

Does that include those pulling the "D" lever or just the "R" lever?

[Danzig]

relative to the subject, good going virginia. of course, that's another example of one having to hold ones nose while voting, but i think they did choose the lesser of two evils.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

relative to the subject, good going virginia. of course, that's another example of one having to hold ones nose while voting, but i think they did choose the lesser of two evils.

How sweet it is...Cuccinelli sucks..

Voters in Virginia, New Jersey leave Tea Party reeling


Related: Election 2014: McAuliffe wins Va. governors race, Christie re-elected in N.J.

And yet Cuccinelli struggled from start to finish in a race Republicans should have won easily, up against a flawed Democratic candidate in a state with a steady history of voting against the party in the White House, in this case Democratic President Barack Obama.


http://news.msn.com/us/voters-in-vir...-party-reeling

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

How sweet it is...Cuccinelli sucks..
Voters in Virginia, New Jersey leave Tea Party reeling


Related: Election 2014: McAuliffe wins Va. governors race, Christie re-elected in N.J.

And yet Cuccinelli struggled from start to finish in a race Republicans should have won easily, up against a flawed Democratic candidate in a state with a steady history of voting against the party in the White House, in this case Democratic President Barack Obama.


http://news.msn.com/us/voters-in-vir...-party-reeling

yes, he does. but i think he was trying to make that illegal.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, he does. but i think he was trying to make that illegal.

Stewart and Colbert this week lot's of

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Stewart and Colbert this week lot's of

yeah, i only have seen mondays shows. good as usual.
will try to watch last nights shows tonite. i'm getting old, can't stay up that late any more!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Does that include those pulling the "D" lever or just the "R" lever?

you're struggling to understand what he meant?

[Danzig]

Gore Vidal selected quotes...



“It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people” (how true. note that many corporations give to both parties. that way, they're in the pols pockets regardless of who wins the election)

Now you have people in Washington who have no interest in the country at all. They're interested in their companies, their corporations grabbing Caspian oil.


Democracy is supposed to give you the feeling of choice, like Painkiller X and Painkiller Y. But they're both just aspirin.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Gore Vidal selected quotes...



“It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people” (how true. note that many corporations give to both parties. that way, they're in the pols pockets regardless of who wins the election)

Now you have people in Washington who have no interest in the country at all. They're interested in their companies, their corporations grabbing Caspian oil.


Democracy is supposed to give you the feeling of choice, like Painkiller X and Painkiller Y. But they're both just aspirin.

I agree with much of what you say here. It is true no doubt.

We technically have a republic, not a democracy - but that makes it all the more important who is selected by the voters to represent us.

I can't reconcile the low opinion of Congress (8% to 13%) with the astronomically high re-election rates seen in the House (upwards of 90%). Something nefarious is going on.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I agree with much of what you say here. It is true no doubt.

We technically have a republic, not a democracy - but that makes it all the more important who is selected by the voters to represent us.

I can't reconcile the low opinion of Congress (8% to 13%) with the astronomically high re-election rates seen in the House (upwards of 90%). Something nefarious is going on.

You will understand it more if you look into the mirror this morning. When was the last time you voted for someone not from the bloods?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I agree with much of what you say here. It is true no doubt.

We technically have a republic, not a democracy - but that makes it all the more important who is selected by the voters to represent us.

I can't reconcile the low opinion of Congress (8% to 13%) with the astronomically high re-election rates seen in the House (upwards of 90%). Something nefarious is going on.

high re-election rates due to party control, money and the like.

i like the thought of term limits, but the parties would only insert a new candidate and keep the seat. and if a seat holder doesn't toe the line, they support someone else-see joe lieberman. and not everyone has the money to run as an independant and win the general election, like lieberman did.

what we need is campaign finance reform-again. but that won't happen, because why would pols slit their own throat? and scotus didn't help with its citizens united ruling, which is looking more and more like a bad move.
the common man, which is most of us, has no voice any more. thus, legislation will be for those with a voice, and that would be the rich.
this is why taxes continue to drop for the rich, no one else, you have legislation written by corporations, the minimum wage won't budge, all to aid the bottom lines of those with all the power and money and all the say.

Originally Posted by joeydb

I can't reconcile the low opinion of Congress (8% to 13%) with the astronomically high re-election rates seen in the House (upwards of 90%). Something nefarious is going on.

It's called gerrymandering (but you know that, I'm sure).

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

It's called gerrymandering (but you know that, I'm sure).

I am familiar with gerrymandering. But people do move too, and the redistricting only occurs every 10 years in response to census data. 90%+ effective though? Still surprising.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you're struggling to understand what he meant?

No, just pointing out that both parties have consistent supporters, and I wasn't sure if he disagrees with both parties.

[joeydb]

SCOTUS can make unconstitutional rulings. The difference is that in modern times the other two branches do not do much about it. Each branch can (and is morally obligated) to derail an unconstitutional law.

Judiciary Branch: The Supreme Court can set aside an unconstitional law through their decision.

Legislative Branch: The Congress can repeal it or supersede the unconstitional law with a just law.

Executive Branch: The President can direct the Justice Department to not enforce the unconstitional law, or (this is a little bit of a gray area): attempt to negate the law with an Executive Order to the contrary of the law's intent and purpose.

The ACA/ObamaCare law qualifies as being unconstitutional in that it is not in within the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government from the states.

So I'm not ignoring the Supreme Court but pointing out that like any other group of human beings, they can get decisions wrong. They have in the past obviously with the Dred Scott decision - the high water mark of lunacy in civil proceedings, and in my opinion, with Roe v. Wade as well.

Further, the individual citizen need not be bound to consider a law constitutional or unconstitutional by copying the Supreme Court's opinion. The Constitution is an open document, surprisingly free of legalese and each one of us can read it and see if "a reasonable person" would consider newly crafted law in scope of that master document.

As to the woman getting screwed over: Yes, United Healthcare made the decision to leave California, but only because the Federal government via the ACA has intruded so much into the health care business as to make it impossible for United Healthcare to turn a profit unless they change things. The government initiated ObamaCare and by extension the ripple effect that goes through the insurance companies who now have to adjust their business practices to keep a level of profit. The blame rests solely on the government as the initiator of this fiasco and the predictable effects in the actions that businesses will have to take in order to survive.

Businesses must turn a profit or they will close down. The government has no such restriction which is how you get to a 17 trillion dollar debt.

The fact that she can still buy reduced coverage at a severely increased rate is laughable as a "benefit" of this law.

[joeydb]

[joeydb]

[bigrun]

Website warning...Just got this priority email...be careful out there.




There are over 700 fake OBAMACARE websites stealing your information. When you sign on, REMEMBER, The real site is the one that DOES NOT WORK!