View Full Version : CNN gets it wrong
shiney
06-28-2012, 10:36 AM
So, ObamaCare, as it will forever be known thanks to a failed attempt at messaging - is deemed constitutional as a whole. Some tricky legal maneuvering regarding the validity of the individual mandate, and some intrigue in that Roberts swung opposite of his traditional leanings in support of the law.
But the real story? CNN was so hyped up to be the first to report the story (http://www.thedailydolt.com/2012/06/28/cnn-mistake-supreme-court-obamacare/) that they got it perfectly and completely wrong. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ulU7BEMPW8s)
Idiots.
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z194/neritz/zehppng.jpg
So, nice work Obama administration, and really nice work, CNN.
Pip Boy
06-28-2012, 02:37 PM
All the pictures of rejoicing protestors glad to hear about the mandate go down kind of make them look like jackasses now that the mandate didn't go down.
Bells
06-28-2012, 03:40 PM
Meanwhile........
http://i46.tinypic.com/2cqjhag.jpg
Solid Snake
06-28-2012, 03:50 PM
Maybe it's just the lawyer in me, but what's fascinating for me personally is exactly what has happened to Chief Justice John Roberts in recent days that have swung him so far astray from his political leanings in the last two major Supreme Court decisions.
Hell, Roberts swung further left than Kennedy, and everyone assumed that Kennedy was Obama's only hope of upholding the bill.
And I mean, as much as I hate to say it, Fox News almost has a point, at least regarding the Obama Administration's staunch refusal to characterize the Health Care system as a 'tax' (because the word 'tax' has severe consequences in regards to voter popularity), and Roberts and the majority here ruling that the law can and should be upheld as the legal equivalent of a 'tax.'
Utterly fascinating. I never would have predicted this outcome. I thought there was a chance the law would be upheld, but I thought Kennedy, and certainly not Roberts, would be its savior.
So did someone find Roberts' 'humanity' button and reprogram him? Is this an indication that Roberts is going to pull a Souter, betray his perceived Republican principles and gradually join the Dems in future decisions? Or is this just some strange aberration? There's ways you could construe Roberts' recent turns within the paradigm of his own ideological platform -- it just requires a fair deal of stretching.
Since Roberts has always been considered a 'big government' kind of Republican, it's feasible that he just wants to retain as much Executive and Congressional powers as possible so that the right-wing can eventually get away with their own social engineering experiments under the same rubric.
...But still, man. Everyone's scratching their heads over this one.
A Zarkin' Frood
06-28-2012, 05:04 PM
Fuck you fucking fuck shit piss crap kill piss.
What the hell is so terrible about paying a little for your own well-being? Germany is only a pseudo socialist country but guess what's in our fucking constitution. Healthcare.
I mean, yeah, I'm glad it didn't get shot down. By some jerkasses.
It's just the kind of thing I don't get. Why would you oppose something like this? Or is this some weird way to make the poor die out because they can't afford their health related bills? I think the last thing a government and it's people should want are, well, dead people. Or severely sick/crippled/whatever people who need all kinds of care beyond normal health care.
I have no idea how health care will work in the US but in Germany (roughly) half of the health care is paid by the employer (or the the government in case of unemployment) of the insured the rest by the insured themselves. Seems okay in my book. Oh wait, that's what's actually happening, right? And since the U.S. are largely a corporate state a lot of people who hate life or love their money a little too much complain. Well damn. :(
Solid Snake
06-28-2012, 05:25 PM
Fuck you fucking fuck shit piss crap kill piss.
What the hell is so terrible about paying a little for your own well-being? Germany is only a pseudo socialist country but guess what's in our fucking constitution. Healthcare.
I mean, yeah, I'm glad it didn't get shot down. By some jerkasses.
It's just the kind of thing I don't get. Why would you oppose something like this?
...Is this directed at me, specifically?
Because nothing I stated earlier should have been interpreted as a statement against the health care law.
CABAL49
06-28-2012, 05:57 PM
I think he was just expressing frustration at the opponents of Obamacare. Not everything is about you David Hayter.
Karrrrrrrrrrrresche
06-28-2012, 05:59 PM
All the pictures of rejoicing protestors glad to hear about the mandate go down kind of make them look like jackasses now that the mandate didn't go down.
It kind of seemed like they looked like jackasses the whole time to me.
Loyal
06-28-2012, 06:10 PM
Fuck you fucking fuck shit piss crap kill piss.
What the hell is so terrible about paying a little for your own well-being? Germany is only a pseudo socialist country but guess what's in our fucking constitution. Healthcare.
I mean, yeah, I'm glad it didn't get shot down. By some jerkasses.
It's just the kind of thing I don't get. Why would you oppose something like this? Or is this some weird way to make the poor die out because they can't afford their health related bills? I think the last thing a government and it's people should want are, well, dead people. Or severely sick/crippled/whatever people who need all kinds of care beyond normal health care.
I have no idea how health care will work in the US but in Germany (roughly) half of the health care is paid by the employer (or the the government in case of unemployment) of the insured the rest by the insured themselves. Seems okay in my book. Oh wait, that's what's actually happening, right? And since the U.S. are largely a corporate state a lot of people who hate life or love their money a little too much complain. Well damn. :(
(A) The only thing these people care about is their personal wealth, and leaving their immediate family comfortable. They simply do not consider the masses a factor worthy of their consideration, and certainly don't care about things like the stability of the economy or the prospects of our future after they're dead.
(B) This bill has become emblematic of Obama, and since his election the Republicans, with no exaggeration, made it their single unifying goal to ensure that Obama was defeated at every turn, so that he looks weak in 2012. They have even attempted to bury bills, introduced by themselves, after they were approved by Obama.
A Zarkin' Frood
06-28-2012, 06:10 PM
...Is this directed at me, specifically?
Because nothing I stated earlier should have been interpreted as a statement against the health care law.
It has nothing to do with you, just a general fuck you to opponents of health care. Which aren't in this Forum. I hope. Anyway, yeah, it was basically a coincidence my post was directly under yours.
EDIT: I can see why starting a post with a "Fuck you" followed by an incoherent string of swears would make you believe it's maybe directed at you when it's the post following yours. But you have mostly okay political opinions.
RobinStarwing
06-28-2012, 06:36 PM
First off....
AMERICA!! FUCK!! YEAH!!
Second, I am mostly glad this was upheld. Something had to be done about the state of the Health Care System in the United States and I am glad someone had the balls to do it.
Is it perfect? No, not by a long shot. Is it better than doing nothing? Yes.
But yeah, Justice Roberts siding with the government was a huge surprise for me. I hope it means good things for when Prop 8 is before the SCOTUS later this year.
So, when do we get to start shipping the older GOP members off to the Death Panels that don't exist they so rant and rave existing?
phil_
06-28-2012, 08:42 PM
I guess I could google this, but I'll ask you guys instead. What economic wizardry transforms "Everyone MUST HAVE healthcare" into "People who can't afford healthcare + food now will be able to afford both because they don't have a choice?" Like, something about car insurance or something; I really don't get how I'm gonna be able to insure myself on the $7 an hour I'm making any better than I can now. Seems to me that HMOs would just raise their prices further, given that making a buck is far higher on their list of priorities than providing health care.
Teach me.
POS Industries
06-28-2012, 09:02 PM
So did someone find Roberts' 'humanity' button and reprogram him? Is this an indication that Roberts is going to pull a Souter, betray his perceived Republican principles and gradually join the Dems in future decisions? Or is this just some strange aberration? There's ways you could construe Roberts' recent turns within the paradigm of his own ideological platform -- it just requires a fair deal of stretching.
Since Roberts has always been considered a 'big government' kind of Republican, it's feasible that he just wants to retain as much Executive and Congressional powers as possible so that the right-wing can eventually get away with their own social engineering experiments under the same rubric.
...But still, man. Everyone's scratching their heads over this one.
Basically, he does not support the law from and ideological standpoint and made that clear. However, he seems to understand that just because he doesn't like a law doesn't mean it's unconstitutional, which in this case it wasn't.
Bells
06-28-2012, 09:08 PM
So i suppose the race for the White House will be Obama saying how he made the country safer and healthier and Romney saying how he made it Broke and Jobless...
Solid Snake
06-28-2012, 09:32 PM
Basically, he does not support the law from and ideological standpoint and made that clear. However, he seems to understand that just because he doesn't like a law doesn't mean it's unconstitutional, which in this case it wasn't.
When Souter started slowly drifting left, he started off that way, too; clearly articulating ideological objections yet nonetheless landing on the correct side increasingly often.
...I'm not sayin' this is definitely where Roberts is going; he could just be pulling a Hughes (which is still commendable, yet less an indication of a consistent swing leftward.)
But we can hope.
Thadius
06-28-2012, 09:52 PM
And what happened, that day? Well, in D.C., they say that Roberts' small heart grew by three sizes that day!
I actually am encouraged by this one small step Roberts made.
CNN not so much.
rpgdemon
06-28-2012, 10:09 PM
I guess I could google this, but I'll ask you guys instead. What economic wizardry transforms "Everyone MUST HAVE healthcare" into "People who can't afford healthcare + food now will be able to afford both because they don't have a choice?" Like, something about car insurance or something; I really don't get how I'm gonna be able to insure myself on the $7 an hour I'm making any better than I can now. Seems to me that HMOs would just raise their prices further, given that making a buck is far higher on their list of priorities than providing health care.
Teach me.
It also lets you stay on your parent's healthcare longer, and keeps children from being denied coverage based on preexisting conditions, from what I've heard, which is good. If your parents have healthcare, you can get onto their plan up until 28 now, if I'm not mistaken. It might be 27.
I think, and this is just from what I've heard so it might be wrong, that this is mostly just helping people be able to receive healthcare who otherwise couldn't, and not helping those who cannot afford it. Someone explained it to me as this: "The law says that healthcare is a human right and can't be denied to someone", not that everyone will have it.
It's at least a step in the right direction, though I'm still not sure about the whole making it illegal not to have health care thing. It's not a good idea not to have healthcare, but if you legitimately can't afford it, I don't think the law helps. Heck, it might hurt, depending on how much you need to pay.
Bells
06-28-2012, 10:59 PM
You only have to pay if you can afford it. That's the whole plan... if you have to means to have Healthcare, you must have it and not depend on the Government to do it for you, because doing so makes it more expensive for those who can't afford it.
HOW they are gonna set who can afford it though, that i'm not sure... might be based on declared income?
shiney
06-29-2012, 10:27 AM
If you want my opinion, which you don't but get it anyway, I think this has nothing to do with Roberts' position shifting, and much more with his absolute knowledge that the Roberts court has been one of the most partisan and leaste ffective in protecting the rights of the individual citizen. With Kelo, Citizens United, the no-knock warrant decision, the "reasonable suspicion" decision and a variety of other decisions that have continually supported the GOP or corporate /authoritarian position against individual rights and freedoms, I think he made a judgment call to try and detract from the criticisms that his is a partisan court that relies more heavily on ideological positioning and personal beliefs than valid interpretation of the law.
Scalia and Alito do nothing to help this perception, mind.
Edit: in re phil_, there are exemptions for people who fall under a certain income threshold whereby the tax will not be levied.
Magus
06-29-2012, 07:30 PM
CNN: Dewey Defeats Truman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman)
HOW they are gonna set who can afford it though, that i'm not sure... might be based on declared income?
Government subsidizes completely people making up to 130% of the poverty line by putting them on Medicaid. After that you pay a graduated percentage based on your income up to 300% of the poverty level (or maybe 400%, I'm not sure, according to the below it is up to 400%) and the government subsidizes whatever is left over to purchase private insurance through new exchanges which go across state lines.
Households with incomes below 400 percent and above 133 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL) who are enrolled in insurance plans offered through the exchanges are eligible for premium assistance financed by the federal government (Medicaid will cover families with incomes below 133 percent of FPL). In 2010, the FPL is $22,050 for family of four. The new law establishes a sliding scale of assistance based on limitations on required family contributions to the cost of coverage. For instance, at 150 percent of FPL in 2014, ObamaCare limits the amount that such households must contribute toward their health insurance premium to 4 percent of their annual income. At 400 percent of the FPL, households must contribute 9.5 percent of their income toward insurance premiums. Whatever portion of the total health insurance premium for their coverage is not paid by these households is covered by the new federal premium assistance program.
The above is from an anti-Obamacare website (http://www.obamacarewatch.org/primer/exchanges-and-premium-subsidies) but I'm just going to assume the numbers are correct based on numbers being hard to just go ahead and lie about (but who knows?) Note that 400% of FPL for a family of four is around $90,000. I'm guessing at 90,000 dollars you aren't going to be needed the government subsidized healthcare but who knows?
2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml)
Personsin Family // 48 Contiguous States and D.C. //Alaska //Hawaii
1 $10,890 $13,600 $12,540
2 14,710 18,380 16,930
3 18,530 23,160 21,320
4 22,350 27,940 25,710
5 26,170 32,720 30,100
6 29,990 37,500 34,490
7 33,810 42,280 38,880
8 37,630 47,060 43,270
For each additional
person, add 3,820 4,780 4,390
Obviously costs would have been lower towards the people actually receiving subsidies if the original single-payer plan had been implemented instead of the weird semi-privatized mish-mash that actually occurred due to the Republicans/Democrats wanting to "rescue" the private insurance industry.
I guess I could google this, but I'll ask you guys instead. What economic wizardry transforms "Everyone MUST HAVE healthcare" into "People who can't afford healthcare + food now will be able to afford both because they don't have a choice?" Like, something about car insurance or something; I really don't get how I'm gonna be able to insure myself on the $7 an hour I'm making any better than I can now. Seems to me that HMOs would just raise their prices further, given that making a buck is far higher on their list of priorities than providing health care.
Teach me.
As for HMOs raising their prices, this law is actually bringing 30 million more people into the mix, so their profits will be higher than ever, even with the new federal guidelines and oversight that will supposedly keep their costs down (fat chance), but in any case the idea that insurance premiums will go up is probably untrue. Will taxes go up? Possibly. Is this a tax? I guess. Can the government tax the shit out of you for things far less needful than healthcare? They can and will and do. I'd like some health insurance to go with my trillion dollar military budget, please.
Cloud Strife
06-30-2012, 09:41 AM
When Souter started slowly drifting left, he started off that way, too; clearly articulating ideological objections yet nonetheless landing on the correct side increasingly often.
Bolding for emphasis. While I don't know his historical decisions, I can say that it's dangerous to say 'correct side' when it comes to politics. But then, what do I know, I'm a semi-concerned libertarian (though nowhere near as involved in politics as Archbio was/is).
On topic, however, I'll agree; this is a great day, and I'm scratching my head over Roberts as well.
Terex4
06-30-2012, 10:52 AM
I guess I could google this, but I'll ask you guys instead. What economic wizardry transforms "Everyone MUST HAVE healthcare" into "People who can't afford healthcare + food now will be able to afford both because they don't have a choice?" Like, something about car insurance or something; I really don't get how I'm gonna be able to insure myself on the $7 an hour I'm making any better than I can now. Seems to me that HMOs would just raise their prices further, given that making a buck is far higher on their list of priorities than providing health care.
Teach me.
I believe the bill also states that companies who employ more than 50 people must provide health insurance as well. I don't know if this prevents companies from only offering it to full-time employees and then hiring everyone as part-time to get out of it.
Jagos
06-30-2012, 08:13 PM
When Souter started slowly drifting left, he started off that way, too; clearly articulating ideological objections yet nonetheless landing on the correct side increasingly often.
...I'm not sayin' this is definitely where Roberts is going; he could just be pulling a Hughes (which is still commendable, yet less an indication of a consistent swing leftward.)
But we can hope.
Roberts is very authoritarian. If you notice, the entire idea behind Obamacare/Romneycare were all conservative ideas. The mandate was thought up by the Heritage Foundation and it's been toted in six Republican states. The problem arises that Roberts has essentially taken away some of the power of Congress with this ruling and energized the right wing to utilize every trick in the book to overturn Obamacare.
Bells
07-01-2012, 03:21 AM
and that's when The Mississipi Tea Party made a call to arms for an Armed Revolution in america
MSTP STATEMENT ON OBAMACARE RULING
6/29/2012
With its 5-4 ruling upholding Obamacare the US Supreme Court has joined with the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government in abandoning the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and with that ruling abandoned the People. All of us are now simply chattel of the government to be used and ordered about as they choose. The history books will mark this date as the day our constitutional republic was killed. It will now rest with We The People to decide if it will be resurrected or left to rot in the shallow grave dug for it.
Where is the weeping and wailing? Where is the anger and outrage? Do the people of the country realize what has just been stolen from them? Do the people of the world recognize that the shadow of darkness is now fallen upon them as well and that there remains no defender of their feeble freedoms? The all out oppression of all people has begun.
Those “occupiers” now controlling the three federal branches of government have joined together in rejecting all Constitutional restraint and in doing so they have severely violated their oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Together they now stand as blatant usurpers of power and have reduced our constitutional republic, along with all of its freedoms, to nothing more than a dictatorial junta. Becoming a banana republic is next.
When a gang of criminals subvert legitimate government offices and seize all power to themselves without the real consent of the governed their every act and edict is of itself illegal and is outside the bounds of the Rule of Law. In such cases submission is treason. Treason against the Constitution and the valid legitimate government of the nation to which we have pledged our allegiance for years. To resist by all means that are right in the eyes of God is not rebellion or insurrection, it is patriotic resistance to invasion.
May all of us fall on our faces before the Heavenly Judge, repent of our sins, and humbly cry out to Him for mercy on our country. And, may godly courageous leaders rise up in His wisdom and power to lead us in displacing the criminal invaders from their seats and restore our constitutional republic.
Roy Nicholson
Chairman
Mississippi Tea Party
CABAL49
07-01-2012, 12:26 PM
You know, when Rome stopped being a Republic, it became pretty badass. No one remembered the stuff before Julius Ceaser cause it was them getting their asses kicked and being dumb. Punic Wars? More like Puny Wars.
Professor Smarmiarty
07-01-2012, 12:31 PM
But like pretty much all their territory was captured late republic.
Jagos
07-01-2012, 01:26 PM
You know, when Rome stopped being a Republic, it became pretty badass. No one remembered the stuff before Julius Ceaser cause it was them getting their asses kicked and being dumb. Punic Wars? More like Puny Wars.
I doubt Rome had to deal with a Texas GOP that doesn't want students to think or showed how outright racist they were when people of color get their voting rights revoked...
CABAL49
07-01-2012, 01:30 PM
But like pretty much all their territory was captured late republic.
By the dudes who told the Republic to fuck off. Anyone of note during the Republic was always betrayed by the Republic.
I doubt Rome had to deal with a Texas GOP that doesn't want students to think or showed how outright racist they were when people of color get their voting rights revoked...
Rome didn't take criticism very well. You know, the whole crucifixion thing.
lol at the tea party. I guess the invaders are "anyone who is not republican or votes against republicans"? man oh man talk about out of touch with reality.
Magus
07-03-2012, 11:40 AM
Can we make "white people shouldn't call themselves chattel" the new "white people shouldn't use the n-word"?
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.