|
|
| Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. (924429) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (924430) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Mar 28 15:54:29 2012, in response to Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by Rockparkman on Wed Mar 28 15:45:50 2012. You could solve that problem by simply not requiring the insurance company to sell it to somebody who has a — a condition that is going to require medical treatment, or at least not – not require them to sell it to him at — at a rate that he sells it to healthy people. But you don’t want to do that.Apparently he is stupid, since no one has suggested insurance rates for those with pre-existing conditions be the same as those for healthy people. |
|
|
| (924496) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Mar 28 18:10:51 2012, in response to Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by Rockparkman on Wed Mar 28 15:45:50 2012. The REPUBLICAN health plan ...
|
|
|
| (924580) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Wed Mar 28 19:08:09 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Mar 28 15:54:29 2012. They should be. I'm someone that has a pre-existing condition that is genetic....I did not ask for it. I certainly shouldn't be economically crucified for something that was not my doing, nor could be prevented through any change in lifestyle, diet or exercise (in fact I has quit smoking over 10 years before it hit). I did not ask for this. Thing is, with regular medical care it shouldn't make a difference WRT lifespan. However, I couldn't get insurance until ACA came about. Now that's about to come to an abrupt end thanks to some RW creep on SCOTUS.Nazis like Scalia want to kill Americans. This is not a person that should be sitting where he is, with the power to kill innocent people. |
|
|
| (924588) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Mar 28 19:13:59 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by bingbong on Wed Mar 28 19:08:09 2012. Why should they be? Car Insurance rates are higher for poor drivers. Home Owners Insurance rates are higher for people living in high crime areas? Life Insurance rates are higher for people who smoke, have high blood pressure or diabetes. Why should health insurance be any different other than it effects you? |
|
|
| (924593) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by Rockparkman on Wed Mar 28 19:17:38 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by Train Dude on Wed Mar 28 19:13:59 2012. We need to destroy the health insurance companies. Cry me a river for the non union employees and stockholders. They can go to HELL. |
|
|
| (924595) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Wed Mar 28 19:25:10 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by Train Dude on Wed Mar 28 19:13:59 2012. I don't smoke.I eat as well as I can afford to, am a "borderline vegetarian". (Ask Selkirk, I make him nutz sometimes) I don't engage in any risky activities. I am NOT diabetic. I do not have high blood pressure. Yet I am high risk because of something I have no control over. I should not have to pay higher rates because of something I have no control over, especially when I am doing everything I can to minimize the consequences of. |
|
|
| (924601) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Wed Mar 28 20:16:36 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by bingbong on Wed Mar 28 19:25:10 2012. …and this is where the single-payer, cradle to grave, system scores so well. |
|
|
| (924613) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Wed Mar 28 20:48:38 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Mar 28 18:10:51 2012. A broken link. How apt! 8-) |
|
|
| (924621) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Mar 28 21:02:43 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by 3-9 on Wed Mar 28 20:48:38 2012. Well ... let's fix that! :)The REPUBLICAN health plan: 
|
|
|
| (924638) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Wed Mar 28 21:33:01 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Mar 28 21:02:43 2012. Nah, I still think the broken link icon represents the Republican plan better! 8-) |
|
|
| (924642) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Mar 28 21:38:17 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by 3-9 on Wed Mar 28 21:33:01 2012. Going to be quite interesting to see the results of the republican war on medicine. Especially since it'll be quite visible BEFORE the election by their choice. :) |
|
|
| (924658) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Mar 29 00:05:57 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Mar 28 21:38:17 2012. Dunno, so many people have been indoctrinated into believing that the current system is more or less fine, it could still prove to be a liability for the Democrats. |
|
|
| (924659) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by TonyG on Thu Mar 29 00:13:32 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Mar 28 21:38:17 2012. The GOP has been rallying against "Obamacare" for years. This is not new news. |
|
|
| (924663) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Mar 29 00:22:04 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by 3-9 on Thu Mar 29 00:05:57 2012. As the population ages, more and more of them are actually finding out how it REALLY works. :) |
|
|
| (924664) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Mar 29 00:23:35 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by TonyG on Thu Mar 29 00:13:32 2012. Nixoncare, Romneycare, Inocare, yep ... they're planning to go after the "must treat" for emergency rooms as well now. Paging Dr Mengele. :( |
|
|
| (924680) | |
Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: "We're not stupid." |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 29 01:06:26 2012, in response to Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by Rockparkman on Wed Mar 28 15:45:50 2012. Can't believe you're linking to the Daily Caller, rocKKKparKKKnazi. What next, WND?Your antisemitism is showing again. |
|
|
| (924826) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Mar 29 11:30:39 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by bingbong on Wed Mar 28 19:25:10 2012. I empathize with you but I was speaking in general but is there any reason that I should pay higher rates because of your unfortunate condition? Should you pay more for my high risk behaviors? |
|
|
| (924828) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Mar 29 11:35:41 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by Train Dude on Thu Mar 29 11:30:39 2012. Should you pay more for my high risk behaviors?Okay now thats another post that just dont sound "right"... |
|
|
| (924838) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Mar 29 12:39:03 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by Train Dude on Thu Mar 29 11:30:39 2012. Everyone already does. You ride a motorcycle, and that raises insurance rates for both healthcare (i.e. longterm care needs) and auto liability. |
|
|
| (924897) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Mar 29 16:12:46 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by bingbong on Thu Mar 29 12:39:03 2012. "You ride a motorcycle, and that raises insurance rates for both healthcare (i.e. longterm care needs) and auto liability."That's totally false |
|
|
| (924898) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Mar 29 16:14:09 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by Railman718 on Thu Mar 29 11:35:41 2012. I was talking about my outdoor hobbies such as motorcycle riding. We're not going to discuss my social activities, thank you :) |
|
|
| (924911) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by Rockparkman on Thu Mar 29 16:32:24 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by Train Dude on Thu Mar 29 16:12:46 2012. Motorcycle policies have their own pool which is seperate from the "cager"* pool.Cage-- Biker slang for automobile, Cager-- Automobile driver. |
|
|
| (924915) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Mar 29 16:44:24 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by Rockparkman on Thu Mar 29 16:32:24 2012. You are telling the wrong person. Tell she who is confused (or just making shit up again) |
|
|
| (924917) | |
Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Mar 29 16:48:15 2012, in response to Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by Rockparkman on Wed Mar 28 15:45:50 2012. Apparently Stephen Breyer is a blithering moron with absolutely no grasp of Constitutional definitions or even judicial precedent:http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/breyers-unhinged-commerce-clause-ramblings/453011 I am not sure why the left is surprised that the non-liberal wing of the SCOTUS is not embracing the administration's arguments. They need to get out of that ideological cocoon and into the real world every now and then. |
|
|
| (924937) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Mar 29 17:16:35 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by Train Dude on Thu Mar 29 16:14:09 2012. Ok just making sure now.... |
|
|
| (924961) | |
Re: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Thu Mar 29 17:49:32 2012, in response to Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Mar 29 16:48:15 2012. I was concerned about that lady Kagan ruining the stature and grace of the Institution by not sitting this one out. |
|
|
| (925004) | |
Re: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Mar 29 18:43:32 2012, in response to Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Mar 29 16:48:15 2012. That's OK ... your side has Thomas to more than make up for him. |
|
|
| (925006) | |
Re: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Mar 29 18:45:12 2012, in response to Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Mar 29 16:48:15 2012. Oh ... and Scalia too ... |
|
|
| (925013) | |
Re: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Mar 29 19:00:06 2012, in response to Re: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices, posted by orange blossom special on Thu Mar 29 17:49:32 2012. Sitting it out...on what grounds? Reasonably is subjective. |
|
|
| (925037) | |
Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid. |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Mar 29 19:18:12 2012, in response to Re: Nazi Scalia: We're not stupid., posted by bingbong on Wed Mar 28 19:08:09 2012. While Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. made the Obama administration’s case for the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the health-care law Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted, telling Verrilli, “we’re not stupid.”Justice Elena Kagan, a former solicitor general appointed by President Obama to the high court, sided with Verilli in arguing that young people should be required by the federal government to purchase health insurance because eventually, others will subsidize their health care in the future. Scalia shot back, arguing that young people will make the decision to buy health insurance eventually and do not need to be forced by the federal government to engage in commerce. Elena is walking on thin ice though as a SC justice with a statement like that. Whether "young people should be required to purchase..." is the case or not, "SHOULD be" is the key words there. That does NOT make it constitutional that the government FORCES them to do so. She needs to be looking at the constitution, and what it DOES permit, not what she or anyone else thinks it "should" say or wants it to say. |
|
|
| (925063) | |
Re: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Mar 29 19:42:31 2012, in response to Re: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices, posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Mar 29 19:00:06 2012. Kagan played an instrumental role in the administration's push for healthcare reform before being nominated to the SCOTUS. |
|
|
| (925176) | |
Re: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Thu Mar 29 21:34:44 2012, in response to Re: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Mar 29 19:42:31 2012. Thought I heard she helped, did argue, or wrote the arguments to support it. She's basically judging herself in a worser way than Roberts was accused of. Or was it Thomas? I dunno, all those right wingers look a like. |
|
|
| (925816) | |
Breyer not alone: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Mar 31 14:19:07 2012, in response to Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Mar 29 16:48:15 2012. The wise Latina is woefully ignorant of the law:http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/justice_sonia_sotomayors_shocking_ignorance.html Makes you think about whether progressive political beliefs and the upholding of actual law are mutually exclusive. |
|
|
| (925818) | |
Re: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 31 14:23:28 2012, in response to Re: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices, posted by orange blossom special on Thu Mar 29 21:34:44 2012. She had nothing to do with, that was handled by another division. Thomas is more closely related to the effort to lobby against the law, as his wife was involved on a professional level. He didn't recuse himself. |
|
|
| (925820) | |
Re: Breyer not alone: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 31 14:23:49 2012, in response to Breyer not alone: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Mar 31 14:19:07 2012. They always have been.The justice in question should really consult her brother (a pulmonary physician) before making any kind of politically-ideological ruling. |
|
|
| (925826) | |
Re: Breyer not alone: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Mar 31 14:31:28 2012, in response to Re: Breyer not alone: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 31 14:23:49 2012. It's pretty shocking to listen to the 4 lefty justices during the arguments. They pretty much ignored the law, made the administration's arguments for them if they felt the SG was doing it inadequately and repeatedly appealed to emotion instead of law, at times equating need for law with constitutionality of law. |
|
|
| (925827) | |
Re: Breyer not alone: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 31 14:36:28 2012, in response to Re: Breyer not alone: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Mar 31 14:31:28 2012. Who would they be accountable to for breaking their oath or affirmation to support the Constitution (per Article 6 section 3)? |
|
|
| (925834) | |
Re: Breyer not alone: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 31 14:59:02 2012, in response to Re: Breyer not alone: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Mar 31 14:31:28 2012. The law in question is the Constitution itself. Congress is given two tasks in the relevant section...regulating commerce and providing for the general welfare. The ACA does both. Congress has the power to enact legislation that is necessary and proper to those ends.Few argue that need.The decision should be obvious, aside from those on SCOTUS lacking a concept of what is written in the Constitution.However, it won't be what it should, I expect 5-4 partisan. A decision like that will kill the court's reputation for years to come. |
|
|
| (925835) | |
Re: Breyer not alone: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sat Mar 31 15:28:06 2012, in response to Re: Breyer not alone: Speaking of stupid Supreme Court justices, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Mar 31 14:31:28 2012. It shows how far the left will go to rule on emotion and want rather than on what our constitution states. |
|
|