Four SCOTUS Justices say Fate of Healthcare should be up to frickin' Congress? ((SCOTUS WATCH))

One key component of why this horrendous monstrosity of a law is so obnoxious, and DANGEROUS is the fact that it will dramatically decrease We The People's financial resources to afford and to utilize other proven and safe protocols and natural medicinal products to deal with health problems and issues because this law will not pay for or recompensate those who choose to put their faith in natural medicines and technologies such as acupuncture, chiropractic, herbology, Ayurvedic medicine, Naturopathy, Osteopathy, Homeopathy, energy medicine, magnetic therapy, radionics, polarity therapy, color therapy, aromatherapy, Chakra and meridien balancing therapies, therapeutic massage, Oxygen therapies, Colonic therapy, Chi Gong, Tai Chi, Nutritional therapies, etc.,etc., and they won't pay for the many "not approved" nor the "outlawed" medical therapies that work as well or better than accepted (Pharmaceutical drugs) therapies, but are not "accepted" by the Pharmaceutical/ Medical Cartel who hold a nearly total Monopoly on "healthcare". They wish to make that control TOTAL!!!

The "religion" of conventional/ allopathic medicine is nearly universally accepted as the only real medicine, at least by the media, the minions, and the Powers That Be control structures. Alternative Medicine has been growing rapidly so this latest push to sweep away natural healing systems is embodied in Obamacare. Make everyone spend all of their resources on this one highly over-rated, system that is focused primarily on palliative care, covering up symptoms, with very little focus on the causes of the symptoms. Allopathic medicine has very little succes with chronic illnesses because they don't focus on finding the cause of the malady and treating that cause...they are always focused on taking away or hiding the symptom.

One argument I might make to the SCOTUS justices is that Obamacare is seeking to violate the Separation of Religion and State in that Allopathic medicine is a "Religion" based upon faith in a philosophy of "fighting" the disease (allo-pathic actual latin meaning) VS Homeopathic medicine which is the cure comes from recognizing the cause of the disease. Forcing an individual to make monthly "donations" at the altar of Allopathic Medicine is more dangerous than making one put a pile of money into the collection plate each Sunday at ones "religious" house of worship. Let us choose our house of "health worship" and have the freedom to do nothing and die on our own terms if that is what we choose....not hooked up to tubes, and oxygen, and filled with drugs, with artificial pumps, respirators, in a comatose state racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars of expense for our loved ones and society!!! Freedom of religion includes our healthcare philosophy, what system we believe in. So, let us choose herbs over artifical drugs with lists of counter-indications and symptoms half-a-page long.

Long live Alternative Health Care of all descriptions, and let Allopathic Medicine deal with what they are best at, traumatic injuries, setting bones, putting in tungsten pins, doing skin grafts, etc., and allow other healing arts to deal with chronic conditions of all ilk and every

Yes. READ THE DANG THING!

Thanks, SG, it was funny.

WHITE HOUSE TRIES TO REBRAND MANDATE

The Obama administration is now referring to Obamacare as a “bi-partisan bill” and calling the unpopular individual mandate “a Republican idea,” following three days of tough questioning by the Supreme Court.

“The Affordable Care Act is a bipartisan plan and one that we think is constitutional,” Deputy White House press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Wednesday afternoon.

No Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act on final passage.

He also referred to the individual mandate as the “individual responsibility” clause of the bill, in an attempt to distance the administration from the term individual mandate.

“The administration remains confident that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional; one of the reasons for that is that the original personal responsibility clause…was a conservative idea,” he said.

[link to freebeacon.com]

because DUMBASS we can elect not to own a car

)(*#@%&!)(#@*^^)*(!@)%^(%@*(@_!@^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

)(*#@%&!)(#@*^^)*(!@)%^(%@*(@_!@^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
x 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

It's the Democreep M.O.: make a big fucking mess and then stand there wringing their hands saying it's not their fault.

Lol that 45,000$ bill is all graft and excess though, and you do pay for it in the premiums believe me. The real problem is that american medicine has become a bloated profit driven market where a few big players collude to manipulate the situation and squeeze ever more money from a captive audience's struggle to stay alive which is not even good capitalism.

In a sense, the single payer system that canada has also forces me to participate in that I pay taxes and a portion of my taxes are used to provide free medical care to all canadians and this is not a choice I get to make. At the same time I may not make enough money to owe income tax, but I still get the free healthcare. This is similar to pre-obamacare situation in that some people pay nothing and get free care subsidized by others, but in the canadian model this is not a choice that is made by individuals to get or not get insurance, it is simply reflection of their differing rates of income tax. Personally I think this is strongly preferable.

Obama's lawyers are suggest a distinction between this form of commerce and others, and I think that distinction is that even uninsured people apparently get emergency medical care when they need it. Imagine if you could choose to get car insurance, but that even you did not get that car insurance, ford motor company was duty bound to fix your vehicle after you crashed it into a tree anyways. Many people would realize that there was no benefit to the insurance and the market would not function properly. In this situation there are apparently two options: you either require all people to have car insurance at penalty, or you start refusing to fix the uninsured cars.

In my opinion, neither solution at the individual level satistifies both compassion and prudence. The only proper way to do this at the national scope, is to treat the problem at the national scope, and pay for medicine through national means. At least then everyone is covered without being forced into direct commerce and the unavoidable subsidization of medicine will occur in a regimented and impersonal way behind the scenes.

TL;DR single payer or don't even bother.

Worse case scenario:

If only the unconstitutional tax/penalty and mandate are struck down by the court and the rest is left up to congress to run with then the basic funding mechanism of a nearly 2 trillion dollar freedom ending industry killing government monstrosity will be UNFUNDED.

Remember the good ol' days waaaay back in 2008 when the federal deficit was only about 10 trillion? Well it is kicking up close to 16 trillion now and if the supreme court removes only the tax/mandate portion and leave the rest the deficit will be 18 trillion before the end of the year.

Obama has only been in office for 3 years and by the end of his term he will have increased the federal deficit by 80%.

Got preps?

Last Edited by Resister on 03/28/2012 04:25 PM

Speaking of the White House, they are now accusing the republicans of politicizing the Travon case.

You have got to be kidding. After the "if I had a son he might look like me" crap? After the former Black Panther now congressman took to the floor of the house wearing a hoodie just to make a statement about Trayvon?

Last Edited by Resister on 03/28/2012 04:58 PM

Officially? Carney? Someone else?

I know! These are the stupidist, most Weimer Republic morally bankrupt democrats ever to walk the halls of power with their paint around their ankles.

Only worse are Ginzberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Those disgusting morans are shouldn't be allowed near children.

Yeah, it's getting ridiculous. He invoked himself into the case. What a DB.

It's his party making a mockery in congress today.

Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition, brother!

"His Republican opponents have jumped all over him because they do want to play politics with this issue. The President spoke from his heart on this, it was trying to emphasize with some parents who had just lost a child. By any measure, this was a tragedy and we need to let the investigation take its course," Stephanie Cutter, Obama's Deputy Campaign Manager, said on MSNBC today.

[link to www.realclearpolitics.com]

By request: Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!

Interesting. Veiled behind the campaign, nothing from WH official press, though. Do you kinda see what I mean, SG?

You rock, Res.

Actually it IS looking good for Obamacare being struck down.

You listening to the same audio recordings of the proceedings as the rest of us????

Dog and Pony show ... won't be repealed. Hell, SCOTUS the BC issue pop up on the agenda several times.

Not a single piece of anti-constitutional legislation has been rejected. And here we are, 6 rillion further in debt.

Not a pot to piss in or window to throw it off ..welcome to the USSA.

Usually, it's either-or, because I read that laws frequently have a provision saying that if part of it is invalidated the rest of it is gone too. If I remember correctly.

But Obamacare is not like that. So part of it can be struck but not the rest. SCOTUS has the power to do that, and indeed as you say all they can or should do is to say what is Constitutional and legal. They may find all the rest is Constitutional.

And the fact that it doesn't work at all without some way of getting people insured (private or single payer, for example) is not their problem but Congress'

Obama didn't just say he was very sorry that a young man was killed and it should be investigated like any other case.

He said that in this case, the laws and context should be reviewed as well as the facts receiving great attention. He mentioned context. What context is special about this case? As far as I can tell, the most special thing is that all the black "leaders" want Zimmerman to pay regardless of the facts. That is special!

The Supreme Court's JOB is to weigh legislation
against the Constitution.
If they don't want to do their job,
maybe they could appoint a special council to do it
for them.
Congress evades their responsibilities all the time
this way, why not the SCOTUS?

The buzzword that stood out for me was "context", used by the fucking President of the United States. Boy have we declined as a country. What that means, in liberal-speak (I still remember the civil rights movement) is that we are supposed to go beyond the facts of the case to make the ruling that is better for society as a whole, and you know what ruling they think that is!

The difference is rather obvious. There's no requirement that a person own a car, and if they do not, there's no need for insurance.

The problem with this asinine healthcare law is that it requires you to have health insurance as a condition of being born.

But if legislation is found to be unconstitutional, they strike it. They should not write the new legislation to replace it! Isn't that what conservatives usually say?

I am a conservative, and I don't really understand the problem here. If they strike down the individual mandate, the worst aspects of Obamacare will go away. There will be no excuse for monitoring your bank accounts, etc. Congress will probably (crossing fingers here) come up with something more like single-payer.

And even though I am a conservative, I think we need that because the whole system needs to be ripped out from under the damned insurance companies and drug companies.

Yes, Burt, but what I found troubling was that the final hour was spent deliberating over the Medicaid provisions (and we all know that's a sore spot). I hope I'm wrong! I really, really do!

No you are not. If you don't own a car or drive, you don't have to buy car insurance. lame argument.