The Healthcare Debate Begins: Obama vs. Obama

CrownThomas's picture

Presented without comment: 


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ClipperBASIC's picture

Best Quote from Day #2:


JUSTICE SCALIA:  I mean, the Tenth Amendment says the powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved, not just to the States, but to the States and the people.  And the argument here is that the people were left to decide whether they want to buy insurance or not.


From page 29 at this link:



Marc_W's picture

I haven't had health insurance in years.  I have a well paying job that offers subsidized health insurance.


I am young and healthy.  I've seen a doctor once in the past 7 years, for a physical.  He acted like I was wasting his time.  My premium went up 70% after Obamacare was passed so I canceled in protest.  I won't pay these outrageous premiums to subsidize the sickly children of illegal aliens.  I won't pay to make it viable for these sick old fucks to be covered. 


Wealth transfer from young healthy poor people to rich sickly old people.


Fuck you Obamacare.


And I expect the supreme court to uphold Obamacare despite all the hand wringing.  And I'll never work a day again in the U.S.  I'll move to some white European country where my taxes will go to support other white people, not lazy fucking negroes and illegal Hispanics and their anchor babies.

frenchie's picture


please share the information on that particular country because here in Europe there are identical problems to those you just described...

Marc_W's picture

America is only 70% white.  What European country can claim the same?  Turkey?  Lol.


The Europeans haven't even begun to feel the effects of their non-white populations.  Not yet, anyway.


Compared to where I've grown up and lived in the U.S. any country in Europe would be a white utopia.

GMadScientist's picture

Voluntary single-payer healthcare (available to all with an opt out clause), even at the state level only, and so many problems go away, but insurance companies aren't interested in competition right now and they've got the deep pockets to keep it that way (thanks to the geometric progression that is your premium billing).

We're sorry; the economy can't quite figure out how to afford little Violet right now, please accept our sincerest condolances for your loss.

dirtbagger's picture

I also believe that this is best handled at the state level.  HOWEVER, you cannot allow the health insurance companies to incorporate in those states with lax regulations.  This is what the credit card companies do (I think it is S Dakota) and then argue that they are federally protected from regulations by other states.

I have been paying for health insurance all my life.  I am fed up of subsidizing those individuals - like some of the posters here - who go without insurance and then stick the bills to the taxpayers (medicaid) and individuals like me (inflated premiums) who are insured.  

For those that claim invincibility and argue that they are so healthy that they don't need to buy insurance, in the event of subsequent illness or injury, you should be liable for every penny (not discharged by bankruptcy) for any health costs incurred.  You want your freedom of choice, then be prepared to pay for that freedom of choice.














PulpCutter's picture

You nailed it.  All we have to is allow people of any age to buy into Medicare, at the actual cost that it takes Medicare to provide care, and this whole problem would go away.

Why aren't we offered that choice?  Because the private insurers would go bat-shit if they had to compete in an actual free market.


Catullus's picture

In this magical "free market" you speak of, do I get the freedom not to pay taxes into Medicare? Or am still free to continue being leeched off of in the form of taxation?

Competition with someone whose revenue source is taxation equals free markets now.

Paul Krugman will take that blowjob now.

PulpCutter's picture

Hate to disappoint you, dude, I'm straight.  (turns out Catullus wrote homosexual erotic poems in Greece, with his friend, Lesbia)

But here are some folks who can "help you out":

Paul Babeau: AZ sheriff, appeared in McCain 2008 ad, 2012 Romney campaign Az chair.  Running for US House.  "Outed" after threatening his boyfriend with deportation, if the boyfriend made their relationship public.

Mark Foley: GOP congressman

Ted Haggard: Leader of National Association of Evangelicals, and regular at Bush WhiteHouse "prayer breakfasts"

Larry Craig: GOP Senator, Senate Liason for Romney 2008 campaign

Bob Allen:  GOP Florida Senator.  Florida Chairman for McCain 2008 campaign

Glenn Murphy:  National Chairman, Young Republicans



JohnKozac's picture

Obamacare caused my premiums to soar 48% over two years......"to pay for Obamacare" my insurance company said.

Nationally there are now over 50 million without insurance....only 45 when barry took office.

I knew there was a problem when insurance companies wrote 90% of the bill and "were happy with the final version."

Plus, if the mandate forces everyone to buy health care, why are 50 million still without health care?

I watched several town hall meetings on TV and went to a few myself and saw almost everyone oppose this bill. Yet Pelosi, Reid and Barry ignored 85% of the voters and passed in anyway.

Marc_W's picture

I canceled my health insurance after Obamacare was passed in protest.


Suck my dick Obamacare.

GMadScientist's picture

And next year they'll go up another 10% because the sun shined.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc...

PulpCutter's picture

"Plus, if the mandate forces everyone to buy health care, why are 50 million still without health care?"

Because the requirement doesn't take effect until 2014, knucklehead. You claim to have watched and gone to several meetings on the bill, but somehow missed this?

Dude, you're lying.

optimator's picture

Not everyone has to buy the insurance.  Illegal aliens don't.

RallyRoundTheFamily's picture

I knew there was a problem when insurance companies wrote 90% of the bill and "were happy with the final version.


Shizzmoney's picture

I have to love all of the people screaming status quo instead of single their health care costs rise up.  

The mandate, however, is the worse, most muddled , piece of shit legislation ever assembled.  It was also designed by the Republican led Hertiage Foundation, backed by big Health Insurance companies, and the banks who own their stock.

Under the mandate, I'm actually better off *not* working than working, because as of now in Mass, I am still paying medical bills for a prodcedure done on me WITH health insurance (with corporate health care).  The mandate also encourages employers to shuttle the cost of helth care onto employees, which is great for profit margins (but shitty if you are a poor kid). 

Just don't whine when people aren't buying more McCrap the next 5 years because all of their cash is being sucked into big banker-led health care.

Cole Younger's picture

According to what I have read, the U.S. spends about 2.2 trillion annually on health care or about 18% of GDP. If a single payer system is government run, it won't work. Too many lobbies and corrupt politicians along with bureaucratic agencies will just fuck it up. The money would never get into the proper hands and medical system will end up under funded leading to diminished services.  To support a government run system, you have to have total faith in the government something I don't you? 

Tucson Tom's picture

Bundle health insurance with each IPAD purchase.Problem solved!

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

 above video is so clear - obuma has his name on a bill no one read -that voted on it or who signed it into law. while taking both sides on the mandate. this is humor on par with the best satire. left or right this is our leadership. 

therearetoomanyidiots's picture

In the end what does this video tell us, Obama is like every other politician out there, FOR THE MOST PART, but worse yet, he is hostile to the country.   Remove him from office with you voice in November.



Chief KnocAHoma's picture

And don't get me wrong... the Republicans aren't much better.

The GOP is not right, they are just less wrong.


PulpCutter's picture

"The GOP is not right, they are just less wrong."

Time for a reality check, Chief.  Obie ia a corrupt corporate stooge.  But on every issue, the GOP has led the charge towards a one-world govt.  Ignore the rhetoric, look at the VOTES:

Gramm-Leech-Bliley (repealed Glass-Steagall): 54 'yes' - 53 Republicans, 1 Democrat; 44 'no' - all Democrats

Dodd-Frank (weak piece of crap, but best Americans could do - Republicans fillibustered anything stronger): 60 'yes' - 57 Democrats, 3 Republicans; 39 'no - all Republicans.

House vote tally on Gramm-Leech-Bliley: 243 yes, 57 no. The 57 'no' votes were 50 Democrat, 7 Republican

House vote on Patriot Act:  66 no; 62 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 1 independent

House vote on 2006 renewal of the Patriot Act: 138 no; 124 Democrats, 13 Republicans, 1 independent

Senate NAFTA vote: 38 no; 28 Democrats, 10 Republicans

House NAFTA vote: 200 no; 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, 1 independent


The financial 'services' industry is donating to the Romney campaign at 5X the rate they're donating to Obama. Guess which one they think is better for their interests? The average donation to Romney's SuperPac is $103 thousand dollars, the average to Omaba's is 55 bucks.


BTW, did you know that Bain (Romney) bought Clear Channel Communications (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage) in 2008? That's why "real conservatives" haven't been able to agree on an alternative to Romney; they're lost without someone to tell them what to think!

Clear Channel Communications, Inc. is an American media conglomerate company headquartered in San Antonio, Texas.[3] It was founded in 1972 by Lowry Mays and Red McCombs, and was taken private by Bain Capital LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners LP in a leveraged buyout in 2008.[4]

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

diebold has already voted for me..kind of them to know who I was voting for don't ya think.

Catullus's picture

It doesn't matter.  The insurance companies will be bankrupt in 5 years after this becomes law and the white knight government will come to its rescue.  They'll bailout out the insurance companies and demand to take them over, thereby nationalizing the health insurance companies.  That's how the Fabian Socialists have always dreamed of bringing about universal healthcare. What's better, insurance companies are just billing and dunning systems anyway.  Then they'll push down costs via price and wage controls on healthcare providers. 

What's more, once this beast becomes nationalized, you won't be able to sue them.  They'll just take your money and if they deny your claims, fuck you -- sovereign immunity.  You'll never get a court to hear a case against them.  You'll watch your parents waste away because they can't get a procedure because some bureaucrat got the sick pleasure of denying your claims from not filling out the form correctly. 

Cole Younger's picture

It is very unlikely that the mandate will survive and Justice Kennedy hinted at that. According to one amicus brief, "Congress asserted the improper power to compel commercial contracts" which the Supreme Court already addressed in 1992. For a better understanding of why Obamacare violates contract law, I suggest you read this article.

If the mandate is overturned, the administration will want the whole law deemed unconstitutional. If it is not, the budget process becomes caos as there is no way the government can fund the law. Obama and the democrats created a problem in the law (funding) where there is no escape. So if the mandate is severed, and the rest of the bill remains intact, big problems for funding lie ahead.

Catullus's picture

I'm never one for assuming that one branch of the government is going to tell the other branch of the government that they're not allowed to do something. It just doesn't fit with their MO. And it's interresting that they brought up 1992 and commerce clause because that was the first time in the 60 years prior that they actually declared something the federal government did as "unconstitutional".

chubbar's picture

Yeah, that funding is going to be a bitch, what with the U.S. gov't opposed to deficit spending and all! (sarc, I got your point).


Cole Younger's picture

Yep..the funding will set the stage for some interesting politics if the mandate is severed...If the republicans win in the house / senate or just the house, and repeal the law, the domocrats, including Obama will have to be on board..otherwise they will have to cut other government spending...

francis_the_wonder_hamster's picture

"..the funding will set the stage for some interesting politics if the mandate is severed"

I'm guessing the CBO will just come up with some new unicorn math that shows how Obamacare actually saves money.  We're overdue for a new formula on how to calculate inflation.

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

well pulp I guess the canadian citizen I spent weeks prospecting and hiking with in Atlin BC just came across the border because he liked the other hint: you may be missing all the important points "obuma" was not talking about the good health care in Norway he was against the mandate before he was for you get it??

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

plup you have great insight those who disagree or have concrete examples that go against your view points we are fox news brain washed zombies..I guess you think I watch fox news..LOL (hint all MSM is controlled by the big elite blood suckers pal go get your news from CNN or are their sucker)

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

cat, you wrote well..the crux is this is an very expensive plan to line the pockets of a few (i will let you guess who)..

fee for service in a truly capitalist system would bring health care cost crashing down, so, it will not be allowed to happen..too much power and wealth can be stolen with the above plan.

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

pulp I have direct experience with the canada system..many of those I know in canada will travel to the USA for care as they said" we do not have to wait months for care." dental, cardiac , cancer..the system up north of us makes you wait and wait ..I guess wait long enough and you die and that cost the health system nothing.

misnomer's picture

I have a real problem with people assuming it's the government's sole purpose to take care of you.  That's your job!

I'm Canadian, rarely go to the doctor, but have never had to wait unduly for any surgery or care needed.  I've always paid health care premiums through my job(s), so never have I thought healthcare is "free". 

Only for the non-working, non-productive citizen is it "free".  Even then it's not, because my taxes pay for those that choose (or are unable) not to contribute their share.  If you pay nothing for something, what kind of quality can you expect??

The moment we became a society that insists the feds take care of us, was the moment we were no longer "free". Now the gov controls how we parent (or they will take our kids away), what we eat (don't buy fresh milk please-it will kill you), how we can defend ourselves (don't you dare!), ad nauseum.

There is always a trade-off, and we traded away our right to live (and die) of our own accord.  What a great trade, eh? (sarc)


Marc_W's picture

I guarantee you that if you make me buy a product I don't want I am going to abuse the fuck out of that product.  I would be at the doctor EVERY week for all sorts of shit I would make up.


I will make it my life's mission to get my money's worth.  More than my money's worth.  Allergy testing, fake complaints of heart problems, all kinds of shit.  I'll be on all day researching new things I can go have investigated by a specialist.

therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Just ask Holywood Leftist Tom Greene who came to the US hospitals to have his cancerous testicle removed. 

Ultimately what this law does is make QUALITY healthcare ONLY available to the rich and elite like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and all legislators and captains of industry.  They can afford the private doctors, to fly to Sweeden or elsewhere.   The rest of us will have shit.  

You ALL must understand that this Obama care, like the president, is faulty and bad for the country ultimately leading the 'first black president', apologies to Bill Clinton, to ironically be the president that leads us all into slavery, of the serf and communist/facist variety.  

If you fail to vote this year, OR if you vote for Obama, you ARE the problem. 

PulpCutter's picture

Dental care isn't part of the Canadian system. Further, it's routine for western Mainers to get their dental care over in Quebec, where it's cheaper - so there's no wait.

Guess you have no idea what you're talking about, now, do you?  Another lying sack of shit FauxNews junkie; what a shocker.


therearetoomanyidiots's picture

While the overmedicated guy might be wrong about canada controlling the dental services, you do prove his point then, that a free market system will draw prices down, make service more available - you tell us that dental care isn't part of the canadian system and then proceed to tell us that because of this the people in maine run to quebec to get the cheaper care provided by their free market system.   :-)

PulpCutter's picture

Actually, every medical procedure in Canada is cheaper (much cheaper) not just dentistry.  I am talking about what an outsider, someone without provincial medical insurance, would pay.


Raskolnikoff's picture

exactly, the world is full of empty promises. Like the government can actually take care of you, LOL, just ask those who thought the SEC was created to actually do something other than pick at the small potatoes how effective the government is at doing anything. problem is we live with too many daydream believers

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

we like to project supidity on those who do not see our points of view..this is a major error when it comes to the elite class in the western world. the elites know to keep wealth and power the masses must think that they have a seat at the table..demorat or GOPed. that is why simple truths such as this taking of freedom from the sheep has high IQ lawyers and Judges hearing the case ..for public consumption, just as in Kelo the judges found (out of thin air) a right for the state to take private property to increase (tax revenue) anyone follow up on the fact the big buyer of the property never did build on that we have Fed gov mandating you buy a product, once again a (out of thin air) made up law directly against the constitution. Corzine is the poster boy for the corrupt legal class and the captured fed gov need not look further. this is about how the elites keep control of a very diverse and military giant the USA..nothing else is of import, not global warming (a tool of the elite) gay rights - on and on.( The elite need drug laws to maintain a very profitable business for themselves.) this video of Obuma speaking on the mandate is a great exampe of the lenghts the elite must contort themselves to provide a confused public.

ClipperBASIC's picture

For a person raised to believe that people in the United States of Ameraica live in a free society; the scariest thing imaginable is to wake up one day living under an ALL POWERFUL GOVERNMENT.

According to Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona, in an interview at the below link, should the U.S. Supreme Court fail to strike down the individual mandate in Obamacare, it would be a confirmation that we in fact have an ALL POWERFUL GOVERNMENT.

chubbar's picture

Tell Senator Jon Kyl to read the fucking E.O. the President Obama just signed last week and get back to us on his idea that the outcome of Obamacare is indicative of whether we "in fact have an all powerful government"?

They all talk a good game but are all full of shit. Everyone of these senators took an oath to defend the constitution and not one of them is doing a fucking thing about Obama saying he'll take control of any damn private possession he feels like and congress be damned.

Here's a recap of the E.O. by a constitutional attorney.

By Jonathan W. Emord

On March 16, President Obama without public notice unilaterally assumed dictatorial power over the entire country, issuing an Executive Order (“Executive Order—National Defense Resources Preparedness”) that would permit him in times of peace or war, in his sole discretion, to control all of the nation’s industry and resources for “purposes of national defense.”

Under Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, Congress has the exclusive power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus (the right of one to be released by a court from military or police custody) in “cases of rebellion or invasion” when “the public safety may require it.” Although not synonymous with martial law, which the Constitution never mentions by name, it is nevertheless clear that the Founding Fathers did not intend the President either to declare a state of war or to act independent of Congress to suspend the writ. Moreover, there is no executive power to impose blanket regulations over the economy independent of Congress, even in times of war. In this Executive Order, President Obama assumes that extraordinary power beyond the limits of the Constitution. Indeed, so sweeping are the areas of control, that there is no substantive difference between the powers he has assumed and those of a dictator.

Under the March 16 Executive Order, the President invokes a 1950 Act of Congress, the Defense Production Act, as a basis for asserting extraordinary control over the entire economy in service to the national defense needs of the United States. In effect, President Obama has unilaterally expanded the authority of Commander-in-Chief to include not only command of the military but also to command all private parties and resources in support of the military and objectives of his administration.

The powers assumed are vast, comparable to those exercised by dictators. Part II of the Order includes the following section, which delegates to the various secretaries of the administration the power to supplant private contracts with federal controls over every part of the economy.

Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act . . . to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

The Executive Order expressly does not limit the use of these extraordinary powers to times of war or the theater of war but, rather, they can be used for “purposes of national defense,” entirely in the discretion of the President. The powers are delegated to the cabinet secretaries. There is no provision for prior authorization from Congress, so the President assumes that he may act unilaterally.

The National Defense Authorization Act declared the entire country a “battlefield” in the war on terror and granted the President the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, permit military arrest and detention without notice of charges or any right of due process any American accused of providing support to terrorists. The President’s Executive Order grossly expands the constitutional violations in the NDAA by replacing the Constitution with a presumed power of the President to govern the entire economy. In the history of the United States, there has never been a more profound and grave moment of the exercise of imperial executive power than this.

This President who would be Emperor, now is.


Jonathan W. Emord is an attorney who practices constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies. Congressman Ron Paul calls Jonathan “a hero of the health freedom revolution” and says “all freedom-loving Americans are in [his] debt . . . for his courtroom [victories] on behalf of health freedom.” He has defeated the FDA in federal court a remarkable eight times, six on First Amendment grounds, and is the author of Amazon bestsellers < the Republic, <>The Rise of Tyranny, and < Censorship of Health Information.

Cole Younger's picture

Executive orders are not law. They are however directives for administrative action in the event (in this case) a national emergancy of this nature should it arises. They are temporary directives or policy orders to administrative agencies in the event, it takes congress time to act (i.e. congress is on recess or politically can't act in a timely manner) Once congress acts on the issue, the excutive order becomes null and void.

therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Thomas Jefferson muthafuggas.    The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

nmewn's picture

It was amusing to read the administrations advocate, while arguing for Congress' power to force one group to engage in commerce, to at the same time, admit that ObamaCare's very construct is...discriminatory.

"JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason this is concerning is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts, our tradition, our law has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him, absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that's generally the rule.

It does appear the individual mandate (the forced participation in commerce, whether you want to or not) will be going down.

And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.

GENERAL VERRILLI: I don't think so, Justice Kennedy, because it is predicated on the participation of these individuals in the market for health care services. Now, it happens to be that this is a market in which, aside from the groups that the statute excludes, virtually everybody participates. But it is a regulation of their participation in that market."

RallyRoundTheFamily's picture

aside from the groups that the statute excludes

have you seen the list of those exempt?

Nothing these traitors do surprises me much these days.


disabledvet's picture

let's bring back chattel slavery first and see how that works. Then we can work on "an individual mandate." I mean "the individual has no rights" in our system. So why not give him a mandate!