ya know.. this belong here in the 'Nutty As A Effin Fruitcake' thread..
the supreme Court today..
the solicitor general's argument for mandating young people buy medical insurance..
and Scalia's brilliant retort.. remember, we're talking about medical insurance..for the young, for when they get sick or injured.
what? let companies sells medical insurance and not force them to supply the medical part? isn't that fraud? and uh, isn't that exactly the problem..? insurance companies just keep the money you pay them for their bonus' instead of for your medical treatment?
but hey, Scalia also figures everyone will buy medical insurance, just like he does..
The rest of US?
you, Mr. Scalia, buy GOVERNMENT insurance that is subsidized by the tax payer, to lower cost, while not decreasing the medical treatments!!!! EXACTLY WHAT WE ALL WANT,but you're advocating young people NOT buy insurance and insurance companies NOT cover medical treatments, or if they do, charge much more for them..
the rest of 'us' dont' have the government,tax payer subsidized,low cost,unlimited coverage, medical insurance that you do.. and that's what we're trying to get a scrap of..
the people who think this way, who have guaranteed excellent health care, need to spend a year in the world of those who don't have shit..
if I hear one more retarded remark of "you're not denied basic health care, you can use the ER, or you can bargain with your doctor. They took the Hippocratic oath, they have to treat you" I'm going to go Zimmerman (too soon?) on someone.. NO they don't have to treat you, and you're advocating someone use the ER for a $40 strep throat doctor visit.. which will cost you, not them because they don't have the money, but you $750+ lab and doctors fee's.. brilliant move retard.
I seriously wish I had magic to make people live in the world they want to create for others to live in.. grrrr
While the SG had problems yesterday, Scalia is downright stupid. How in the hell did this buffoon ever get on the court?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/03/28/does_antonin_scalia_know_what_s_in_the_affordable_care_law_.html?tid=sm_tw_button_toolbarThere was in a strange moment in today's severability argument at SCOTUS. Justice Antonin Scalia referred to a deal that Sen. Ben Nelson once made, to make a hypothetical point about what could take down the law.
"If we struck down nothing in this legislation but the -- what's it called, the Cornhusker kickback, okay, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, okay?" asked Scalia, talking to Paul Clement. "When we strike that down, it's clear that Congress would not have passed it without that. It was the means of getting the last necessary vote in the Senate. And you are telling us that the whole statute would fall because the Cornhusker kickback is bad. That can't be right."
The deal that Scalia was referring to -- legendary in conservative anti-Obamacare circles -- was not a classic "kickback." Nelson negotiated for indefinite, unending Medicaid funding for his state. That ended up as part of the bill that initially passed the U.S. Senate on a 60-40 vote.
Here's the rub: It's not actually part of the law. Democrats removed the Nebraska deal in the final tortured negotiations that passed the PPACA in the House. When it got to the Senate again, Democrats only needed 51 votes to pass it; Nelson, who'd gotten the bad press from the deal AND nothing to show for it, glumly voted no.
Here's another rub. In early coverage of Scalia's zinger, the fate of the "kickback" is totally left out. It might be because no one in the room pointed out the mistake. Or it might be that Scalia, and lots of other people, have internalized the conservative case against the law.
