Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/health.care.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T1" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITI...l?hpt=T1</a> So here's the biggest lie: "All of the attorneys general in the 10 states mentioned by McCollum are Republican, but McCollum said the lawsuit would be about the law and not politics."
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 Yeah, I can say that Rob McKenna here in WA will probably not be reelected if he goes through with the suit.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Interesting that this tactic comes from the same party advocating tort reform as the primary means to fight health care costs . . . .
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Well, a part of me wonders if the US would have been better off without the South since the first time.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo And here is the real reason I think I do not enjoy my time at WDW and prefer liberal California and Paris for my park going experiences (I am serious) - oh ya, and the weather and critters.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Damn, the country voted for a democratic president the same way we voted for a republican one eight years prior. Why is it such a shock that maybe, just maybe, the country shifts left a little bit more when we vote for a democrat? Isn't that the whole point?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones That Congress ignored the will of the people is such a dumb argument, because we as a people voted as such that democrats got a large majority. I was disappointed when Bush was reelected in 2004 but I didn't march in the streets or spit on Congressmen. I thought, hey, we'll try again in four years. It's still democracy.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That's because you're an adult. I swear I've never seen a bigger bunch of sore losers.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder What a surprise, the Florida AG is running for governor. Political opportunism aside, here's a good analysis of the bill. Most everyone thinks it is constitutional under the Commerce Clause. To wit: Wake Forest University constitutional expert Mark Hall says almost every legal scholar he knows considers an individual mandate for health insurance consistent with Congress' power to regulate. "An individual who goes out and tries to purchase health insurance cannot buy a policy that covers pre-existing conditions or that asks no medical questions. Such a product is simply not sold in most states, and it can't really be sold economically unless we require most people to have insurance," he said. "So the requirement is really part and parcel of the regulation of the structure and conditions of the marketplace that would allow a very desirable kind of product to be sold." And Yale legal scholar Akhil Amar said the fact that a requirement to buy health insurance would be enforced through fines shows Congress is exercising an even more fundamental constitutional power: its power to impose taxes. Amar says courts should not be concerned that such a mandate has not been used before. "There's a first time for everything. Before there was a federal bank, there was no federal bank; before there was a Social Security Administration, there was no Social Security Administration," Amar said. "Have we ever had a law just like this before? No. That's why it's being proposed. That's true of many laws." <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122693523" target="_blank">http://www.npr.org/templates/s...22693523</a> <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/03/states_opposed_to_overhaul_pre.html" target="_blank">http://www.npr.org/blogs/healt...pre.html</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc Naturally Utah is one of the states. The attorney general is running for Bob Bennett's senate seat. But of course, it's not about politics. Bob Bennett is one of the few sane Republican senators left. He was only one of three to applaud Barack Obama when he called death panels a myth at his Congressional healthcare speech. You can imagine how that went over. But he's still a pretty conservative guy, but maybe not conservative enough for this mental state.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Damn, the country voted for a democratic president the same way we voted for a republican one eight years prior. Why is it such a shock that maybe, just maybe, the country shifts left a little bit more when we vote for a democrat? Isn't that the whole point? >>> The talking point on that issue is that the media gave Obama the election on a silver platter. Had it not been for the media's biased reporting, McCain would have clearly won.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The talking point on that issue is that the media gave Obama the election on a silver platter. Had it not been for the media's biased reporting, McCain would have clearly won." Well, I had no idea media bias made him pick Palin. I could swear it was pressure from the mentally challenged wing of the GOP that forced that wacky broad on McCain, but if media bias did it, then let them have it their way. I've said it before, had McCain picked just about anyone other than Palin, I likely would have voted for him.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, the talking point on THAT one is that you and people like you hold that opinion only for the fact that the media attacked her so viciously.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< McCollum said the lawsuit would challenge the bill's provision requiring people to purchase health insurance, along with provisions that will force state government to spend more on health care services. >>> If they can find a way in their states to solve the health care crisis without those to provisions, then more power to them. One of the big problems we have today is that it's difficult for sick people to get insurance, and the only viable way in most cases to get care at any reasonable cost is to have insurance. But if they can come up with a way to be able to treat sick people at a reasonable cost to them without it being through mandatory insurance, then more to them. I'm doubtful that this is possible, as it makes a very difficult task even more difficult, but there's no saying that it couldn't be done. And, if they can do all of this and not cause state gov't expenditures to go up, even better. Certainly, one of the goals of the bill is not to make state gov'ts spend more money - it's just that everyone thinks this is inevitable. But don't get me wrong - I see what they're doing. They want to oppose the health care bill to further their political agenda and speak to their base, without directly addressing the issue at hand. For example, no state is going to sue saying that the Constitution guarantees citizens of a state the right to die prematurely due to unaffordable medical care, or that a state may choose to continue and accelerate the issue that the biggest cause of personal bankruptcies is medical costs.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Well, the talking point on THAT one is that you and people like you hold that opinion only for the fact that the media attacked her so viciously. >>> Absolutely! I've heard from several noise machine victims with a straight face (and we've heard it here) that Palin is at least as qualified as Obama to serve as President, and that the only reason anyone believes otherwise is because of the media.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros "Well, a part of me wonders if the US would have been better off without the South since the first time." And I'm sure that the South is still thinking that it would be better off wihtout the US, but that's a different debate for a different thread entirely! : ) (and yes, I did just use an emoticon in WE. Deal with it.) "...Palin is at least as qualified as Obama to serve as President..." I'm not so sure I agree with that, but she is certainly no less qualified than Biden to serve as Vice President...
Originally Posted By Mr X We've been over this before, but that right wing talking point (you gotta be a Guv to be Prez, Senator isn't "executive experience") is ludicrous when it comes to comparing those two. Her paltry half-term as a governor of an extremely backwater state was preceded by (was this one term, or two?) being a mayor of an even more backwater tiny town in the same said state. Prior to that, I think sportscaster and beauty queen and five different colleges for a bachelors pretty much rounds out her qualifications, no? How does that even BEGIN to compare, "qualified" wise, with Biden's thirty-six year career as a U.S. Senator where he helped to craft legislation for the nation, conferred with Presidents and leaders of industry and world leaders over the course of those three decades, was privy to information about the nation and the world that very few people know about, and all the learning and insight that comes with commanding such a post for such a long time. As chairman of the Senate Committee of the Judiciary for seven years, he presided over two Supreme Court confirmation hearings (Bork, Thomas). He also chaired the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for four years. And even if you want to argue all of THAT (and I think I just covered why it's an extremely specious argument), there is a reason why "qualified" individuals aren't automatically given a job without one or more interviews to go along with it. Palin got her interview in front of the whole nation, and if the end result wasn't "don't call us, we'll call you" I don't know what is!
Originally Posted By ecdc >>she is certainly no less qualified than Biden to serve as Vice President...<< Really? How do you figure that one.... Joe Biden: Senator for 36 years Judiciary Committee Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sarah Palin: Governor of Alaska ??? Profit! This statement about Biden seems more rooted in a dislike of his gaffe-prone ways than in his actual experience over the years.
