ObamaCare, the Showdown...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny




Fox Nation - "There is not only an economic element to this, a legal element to this, but there is a human element to this. And I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate

Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress.

And I would like to remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is that the biggest problem is judicial activism and that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.

Well, this is a good example and I’m pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step”

By all means Mr. President, now that you've made your political points (as illusory as they are) cut us some slack for not understanding your political drivel.

The Supreme Court will undoubtedly make its decision, hopefully Mr. President it will make the right one. As it relates to your signature piece of legislation (usurpation) and its constitutionality(or lack thereof) of course.

Just to remind you Mr. President the Supreme Court is one of the three branches of government, and it is charged with insuring neither you or the Congress exceeds their constitutional authority.

Via: Memeorandum

Comments

  1. Unprecedented was the action Harry and the Pelosicrats took by shoving this down our throats.

    Obama is a constitutionally ignorant man. I hope the supremes jam the whole damned thing back in his face and make him eat it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, no, no, Les.

    President Obama is a Constitutional Professor, lecturer, expert, whiz-kid, and totally smarter than the whole of all the Supreme Courts ever to exist rolled into one. Didn't you get that memo from the MSM when they were *ahem* vetting Mr. Obama in 2007/2008?

    This guy...I declare. He's a real work, isn't he? A political abortion of epic proportions.

    I'm so glad the Framers put the Second Amendment into our Constitution. You know. Just in case things get too loopy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're a frigging long way from the need to exercise what you're inferring.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps. Right now it seems like they're pelting us lightly with small stones. But given their penchant for violence, ala Occupy "movement", and racial tensions at a near screaming climax, it's only a matter of time before they pick up big rocks to hurl.

      Martial law, anyone?

      Delete
    3. "We're a frigging long way from the need to exercise what you're inferring."

      Amen to that, Les! Nutballs blowing hot air about Second Amendment "solutions" is the last thing we need.

      Who would you shoot first, One Guy? A cop? A soldier? C'mon tough guy, give us specifics!

      Delete
    4. Right. Because we all know the moment someone looks at The Second Amendment and sees wisdom in it, especially given the fact that this current administration is getting pretty loopy and even scares you weaker "conservatives", this means that person is a nutball. Of course.

      *yawn*

      Next.

      Delete
    5. Live by the sword, die by the sword...

      The pen is mightier than the sword...

      Reason is by far superior to, and vastly stronger and than fear... (mine)

      What is loopy One Guy 2012 is your veiled inferences to violence in response to something (anything) you feel inadequate to handle in any other way.

      Delete
    6. ...*sigh*...

      Okay, Les. Your blog, your rules, your say.

      I'm "loopy" because I see the Founders being wise enough to include the Second Amendment as a final safeguard against tyranny in our government, and for this I am being cast in the light of instability. All rumored. All conjecture. All from your fingertips to the screen in front of me.

      Let the God I worship deal with me ever so severely if I am fomenting or hinting at some kind of usurping of our government by design. You have put a label on me that will be used against me, and that's simply how it is.

      Long Live the Republic.

      Delete
    7. I see te wisdom in the 2'ns Amendment as you do.

      Yes it is indeed my blog, and as such I have the right of ownership to set the rules.

      I proudly have allowed dissenting opinion on my site as long as it is relevant,considered, and respectful.

      I did not delete your post nor did I show any disrespect. I did however state my views on your comment. This I will continue to reserve the right to do.

      You are free to continue to visit and comment here as you have a voice that while I do not always agree with needs to be heard nonetheless.

      And that my friend is what our Republic is really all about. Is it not?

      Delete
    8. Hey One Nut 2012, you said this: I'm so glad the Framers put the Second Amendment into our Constitution. You know. Just in case things get too loopy.

      Stop by sighing and yawning, get off your whiny pulpit and answer my question. Who would you shoot?

      Delete
  3. I'm somewhat ambivalent on Obamacare. On the one hand, I defend it by pointing out to my conservative colleague that the plan is essentially a knockoff of the 1993 Republican plan, a Heritage Foundation paradigm, Romneycare, and the 2007 bipartisan Wyden-Bennett proposal. And on the other hand, I criticize it to my liberal colleague for the plethora of inconsistencies in it; the fact that the penalty isn't sufficient enough to ensure compliance (it essentially allows individuals to simply pay the fine and then buy insurance only when they get sick), the hundreds and hundreds of waivers that have up to now been granted (multiple chapters of the SEIU, for instance - a group that has donated heavily to Mr. Obama).............Right now, I myself am leaning toward health savings accounts (with subsidies for those who can't afford it) and only having insurance for catastrophic illnesses. That way, the people will be a little bit more prudent and make these SOB providers actually compete for our services for a change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or, study the Swiss health care plan and adapt it the realities in the USA.

      JUST A THOUGHT.

      Delete
    2. This is why I like you, Les. Yes, you have a perspective and an ideology, but you're also open-minded and pragmatic. I just wish that the Ds and the Rs down in D.C. were more like that.......P.S. I'm still looking real hard at Johnson and liking him. Any chance that Ron Paul bucks the GOP and endorses him?

      Delete
    3. Although the Swiss health plan is an ideal model, there are many things in this country that would make it impossible and costly to administer. Size, health, industry, employment, all play into the health plan and the Swiss have many advantages.

      As a country we need to take care of our citizens health needs. Medicaid is a disaster because of the low reimbursements, Medicare is terrible because of the administration costs and government inefficiencies. The current national healthcare bill exempts companies and groups from participating. It does appear, although I can't believe our politicians could be bought and paid for, political contributions can sway who has to participate.

      We need to have a national healthcare plan but this one is a disaster. Medical care is far too expensive in part because of insurance that takes personal responsibility away from the individual and places the burden on the insurance company. High deductible healthcare with assistance for those with fewer means to pay would be a far better system than Obamacare.

      Delete
  4. I never liked the mandate. It has always been a bad idea. It was a bad idea when the conservatives preached it, and it is a bad idea when moderates do. And it may just keep continuing...?

    Liberals like me have never been comfortable with it. Some liberal pundits support it, but liberals mostly are wary.

    In general, we liberals like to think this will put a reasonable public option to the fore, but we forget the other side doesn't care about healthcare - because usually, at any given moment, they don't need it.

    They don't think ahead. Heck, just tonight I was talking with some really with-it people, and one of them said to me, "Why should we care about a hundred years from now?"

    I said it was because I wanted her great grand-kids to have a nice world to enjoy.

    Personally, I come from the side of caution. I am not nearly as radical as your average conservative would paint me.

    But without a smart healthcare system, yes, SYSTEM, we are not going to advance as a civilization.

    Would you prefer we don't???

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would prefer a system that won't result in loss of choice and will serve to benefit big Pharma even more

      Check out the Swiss system...

      Delete
  5. Obamacare is bad law. At least RN has an idea, which is more than the Republicans offer. Bad ideas and no ideas. What a choice.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, No Judgement of others. We reserve the right to delete any such comment immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic and respectful of others.



Top Posts

As the Obama Administration and a Compliant Lame Stream Media Continue the Benghazi Spin...

It's Going To Be Close, Brace Yourself For Continued Polarization of America, Especially if Obama Loses...

Another Republican Accused Of Sexual Misconduct...

The "Scandal" That Won't Go Away...

Illinois Democrats Move To Tighten Firearm Regulation/Restrictions...

Nancy Pelosi Showing Again She Has Little if Any Grasp of Reality...

The Public's Trust In Government on the Decline...

Our Biggest Creditor {China} Tells Us "The good old days of borrowing are over"