The Third Year of the Obama Administration: Facts, Opinions and Discussions

ramza, you're not a car. Therefore nobody cares if you have insurance or not. America: Where property is valued more than people.

 

If the mandate gets declared unconstitutional we may as well scrap the whole thing and start over, as the current bill (especially no denial for pre-existing conditions) with out a mandate is going to drive health care costs way up. I hope someone has a good back up plan.

 

Well, there's always the tried-and-true "Don't get sick, and if you do, die quickly, without complaining too much, selfish gits."

 

My car has no insurance protecting it and is completely street legal to be driven as such.

 

Congrats. In both of the states I've live(d) in (MD and PA) you're required by law to have car insurance otherwise you can't drive. At least legally.

 

Oh, I'm still required to have insurance to drive, but my car isn't insured. So, if something bad happens to my car, then I'm out of luck. The legal requirements for my car is that there's insurance for damage it causes to others, not for any damage it sustains.

 

Good to know. The point still remains. We value our property more than anyone else. That and Republicans have tricked a lot of people into thinking that if the rich are well off then they're well off.

 

Bloomberg rules out 2012, says Obama's success is the country's success

Appearing on NBC?s Meet the Press New York City Sunday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg flatly denied that he will launch an independent presidential bid in 2012.

?I?m not going to run for president,? he said, adding a few seconds later for emphasis: ?No way, no how.?

?I?m not looking at the possibility of running,? he told NBC?s David Gregory.

Bloomberg said people ?should be encouraged? by the compromise agreement to extend tax cuts and unemployment benefits that President Obama and Republican congressional leaders reached last week.

Top politics news Bloomberg rules out 2012 presidential bid
Appearing on NBC?s Meet the Press New York City Sunday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg flatly denied that he will launch an independent presidential bid in 2012.

?At least both sides of the aisle and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have come together to do something in a bipartisan way,? he said. ?And I?m sure the president would have liked other things, but the real world of governing is to do what is possible and everybody getting something, nobody getting 100 percent of what they want.?

Obama 'has to succeed'

And throughout the interview Sunday, Bloomberg expressed sympathy for Obama.

?This president has to succeed. We all have an enormous amount of capital invested in his success,? the mayor said. ?His success is the country?s success.?

Usually, you have to take a denial by a prominent political figure with a grain of salt. But it seems like Bloomberg is definitely being honest about this, especially with his praise of Obama and explicit hope for Obama's success.

With Bloomberg deciding against running, it looks like there will not be a third viable candidate for 2012, along with President Obama himself and the Republican nominee. With my prediction that Obama will only lose if he faces a strong independent or third party in the general election, or if he is battered enough by a strong challenger in the Democratic primaries, it looks like the only way left is a strong primary challenger. But I don't think such a person exists. Hillary Clinton won't do it. Feingold and Dean both say they still strongly support Obama. I don't really see anyone capable of doing it, there will probably only be a lame Kucinich-type challenger.

I really do think the Democratic Party is going to go into a slump when Obama eventually retires in 2016 (assuming he is re-elected). I talked about this in another thread, but there really is only a small handful of potential presidential candidates out there right now, in the Senate and in the Governors' mansions. Kirsten Gillibrand, Andrew Cuomo, Amy Klobuchar, Michael Bennet... that's all I can think of as potential presidential material for 2016. Someone new may come in, in 2012, but by 2014 it will be too late for a newcomer to prepare for 2016.



In other news

Trump 'really thinking' about prez bid

Let?s get one thing straight: Donald Trump doesn?t want to run for president. Honestly, he doesn?t. Not interested.

But because the country is in such dire straits, he says, the business tycoon and perennial publicity hound just might have no choice. The country needs him.

?For the first time really would think about it. And I am thinking about it. It doesn?t mean I want to do it. I?d prefer not doing it. I?m having a lot of fun doing what I?m doing. It?s a great time to be buying things. I?m buying a lot of things and really having a good time,? Trump told Joy Behar Wednesday on HLN, CNN?s sister network.

?But I hate - you know, I?m very proud of this country. I?m very proud to be an American. And frankly, I hate what I?m seeing. I hate that friends of mine from Europe, from Asia, from all over the world - they?re telling me stories about this country,? the reality television host lamen

 

I don't think anyone wants Trump to run.

 

And why not? If we can have a b-movie president we can have an idiot with a hairpiece.

 

Fine, you vote for him.

 

What about Hillary Clinton? She's not going to be a newcomer, but she is likely going to be a contender for the nomination. If she wins it and the presidency, that buys the Democratic party another 4-8 years to find someone to carry on the mantle.

 

It's definitely a possibility, but that depends on if she wants to run again. She's been talking lately about how much she's looking forward to retirement and grandchildren and how Secretary of State will be her last job in the government. If she's feeling this way in 2010 then I doubt she'll be eager to run for President again in 6 years. So I wouldn't count her out of the running for 2016, but I wouldn't count her in either.

This is one thing I don't like about the new pattern with Vice Presidents. Yes, it is good for governing to pick an unambitious and experienced politician to help advise you, and so you'll know the country's in good hands in case the worst happens, but it also means you have no clear successor or heir to your legacy. Obama has hardly any new or fresh faces with presidential potential in his administration, and neither do the Senate Democrats or the Democratic Governors.

I mean, can anyone really say who Obama's "heir apparent" is, for lack of a better word? He doesn't seem to have even thought that far ahead yet, to groom someone who would be best to continue his policies after he leaves office. Bush didn't have one either, that's why the GOP went back to the person Bush barely beat in the primaries from 8 years earlier. And now that's the same thing people are suggesting for Obama (assuming he wins re-election), to go back to the person he barely beat in the primaries from 8 years earlier. It's just not a very inspiring choice. The Republicans, on the other hand, have started to fill the void and have a lot of young, potentially-presidential candidates that could be ready in 2016.

 

Rich people make jobs. Poor people don't. No trick there. Good common sence.

That said, getting insurance because you choose to drive is a lot different that have to get insurace because you draw breath.

 

The not-so-rich should be able to create jobs too, and the rich don't necessarily create jobs by merely being rich. Nobody's saying it should be illegal to be rich, just that they should expect to contribute more in taxes since they are better off. A flat tax, like a national sales tax, would mean the poorer pay more proportionally than the rich.


Also, the individual mandate isn't really a mandate, it's more like a tax if you choose to remain uninsured.

 

Taking the conservative argument to it's logical conclusion, if there is no "right" to health care, or health insurance (putting aside the obvious argument that health care costs money), then it must be okay to deny services to anyone who is a) uninsured and b) cannot pay.

Emergency Departments should start turning out people who have no insurance without care, on the grounds that medical services are not a "right", and those who cannot pay are not entitled to them.


Now, does anybody seriously think the that the above course of action would fly?

Peace,

V-03

 

Rich people do not make jobs if they have more money. Only a fool, idiot, or a really malicious bastard would believe that.

Probably among 'conservatives' and only if those groups turned away are black, Mexican, gay, or liberal.

 

Hudson's ruling on health care reform

And away we go.

 

Interesting at how much press this is getting; the MSM is ignoring several things (?purposely)

1) Two other federal judges of equal rank ruled just the opposite of this judge.

2) The GOP, specifically Eric Cantor, now suddenly wants an expedited appeal to the USSC, yet the republican party was not in so much of a rush to the Nine when the law was being upheld in the lower courts.

3) The judge in question, Henry Hudson, is a Bush appointee, whilst the other two were democratic-appointed judges.

4) The judge also wrote, in a nutshell, that the entire commerce clause has been very overexpanded and that the clause should not have been applied to transportation, nutrition, etc. Taking this to it's logical conclusion, that would mean that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are potentially unconstitutional as well.

I will reiterate: if health care is not a right, then it should not be an entitlement. However, that argument, despite it's logic, is obviously barbaric on it's face.

Health care is, if nothing else, a moral right. I doubt America is ready to face the reality of what saying it is not will create.

Peace,

V-03

 

There are already some firefighters who do that. Remember those stories of them letting houses burn down because they didn't pay their fee?

When government evolves in that direction, it begins to look more and more like organized crime.




EDIT:

And I agree that healthcare is a right. It is in fact part of one of America's fundamental rights: the Right to Life. The public health could also be argued to be a public good. Healthcare can also be argued as government providing equality of opportunity for Americans. Those three things (right to life, public good, equality of opportunity) are usually used by conservatives and classical liberals to justify theur positions, so using them to defend healthcare is more likely to persuade them. There's also the fiscal argument to make in favor of healthcare reform.

 

to Hudson for declaring the mandate unconstitutional.

Now onto the USSC.

edited: fixed "now"

 

Pathetic...the ruling that is.

 

What do you have to say for the two other judges who did declare it constitutional? Why is his ruling superior to theirs?

 

There's also a right to liberty and a pursuit of happiness. I'm not sure how one can hold it on an interpretation of "right to life" like that and then ignore that for many it runs counter to the follow up fundamental rights.

I'd argue this isn't equality of opportunity, for the most part, because it's trying to tweak the results much more than just who is theoretically able to get health insurance. I think that while we are in need of health care reform, and there are some universal health care structures that I'd support, that to say health care is, therefore, a right, is fallacious.

 

Did I say it was superior? That's why I mentioned the USSC because that's where this is headed.

I also find it curious how this law's supporters don't bring up the growing list of waivers granted to special interests.

All this law did was benefit the insurance and pharmaceutical companies and entrench their power by trying to force Americans into buying their products. Bravo democratic corporatists.