Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
_Abyssinia said:
Romney has said is he wants health care reform, not nationalised health care or RomneyCare for all 50 states
Click to expand...
FYI Romney wants to be elected. He’ll say anything to accomplish that. His past should be remembered.

businessinsider.com/14-bald-faced-mitt-romney-flip-flops-that-were-dug-up-by-john-mccain-2012-1?op=1
  1. NOW THE BIG ONE: During his 1994 Senate Run, Mitt Romney argued that he was more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy FLIP: “When Kennedy called him ‘multiple choice,’ Romney demanded an extra rebuttal. He revealed that a close relative died of an illegal abortion years ago and said, ‘Since that time, my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see me wavering on that.’” (Joan Vennochi, “Romney’s Revolving World,” The Boston Globe, 3/2/06)
    “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.” (Joan Vennochi, “Romney’s Revolving World,” The Boston Globe, 3/2/06)
When he went to conservative Utah, that tune changed.
FLOP: “When I am asked if I am pro-choice or pro-life, I say I refuse to accept either label.” (Glen Warchol, “This Is The Place, But Politics May Lead Romneys Elsewhere,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 2/14/99)

But I’m running for office in Massachusetts again, so I’m pro-choice again
FLIP: “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts’ pro-choice laws.” (2002 Romney-O’Brien Gubernatorial Debate, Suffolk University, Boston, MA, 10/29/02)

In 2002, Romney Offered His Completed NARAL Questionnaire, Filled Out With “Mostly Abortion-Rights Positions,” To The Media Even Before Returning It To NARAL. “Yesterday, Romney also aimed to head off confusion about his stance on abortion rights by answering a Mass National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League questionnaire with mostly abortion-rights positions. He offered the questionnaire to the press even before he returned it to MassNARAL…”
FLOP: Then he started thinking of national office as a Republican. ANd he happened to have a revelation

FLOP: "Romney said he had a change of heart on the issue after speaking with a stem-cell researcher, Dr. Douglas Melton. Romney claims Melton said ‘Look, you don’t have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue, because we kill the embryos after 14 days.’

‘It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life,’ Romney says.” (Karen Tumulty, “What Romney Believes,” Time, 5/21/07)

ATB
 
He’s MUCH MUCH better than obama tho.
Mickey_Finn said:
FYI Romney wants to be elected. He’ll say anything to accomplish that. His past should be remembered.

businessinsider.com/14-bald-faced-mitt-romney-flip-flops-that-were-dug-up-by-john-mccain-2012-1?op=1
  1. NOW THE BIG ONE: During his 1994 Senate Run, Mitt Romney argued that he was more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy FLIP: “When Kennedy called him ‘multiple choice,’ Romney demanded an extra rebuttal. He revealed that a close relative died of an illegal abortion years ago and said, ‘Since that time, my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see me wavering on that.’” (Joan Vennochi, “Romney’s Revolving World,” The Boston Globe, 3/2/06)
    “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.” (Joan Vennochi, “Romney’s Revolving World,” The Boston Globe, 3/2/06)
When he went to conservative Utah, that tune changed.
FLOP: “When I am asked if I am pro-choice or pro-life, I say I refuse to accept either label.” (Glen Warchol, “This Is The Place, But Politics May Lead Romneys Elsewhere,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 2/14/99)

But I’m running for office in Massachusetts again, so I’m pro-choice again
FLIP: “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts’ pro-choice laws.” (2002 Romney-O’Brien Gubernatorial Debate, Suffolk University, Boston, MA, 10/29/02)

In 2002, Romney Offered His Completed NARAL Questionnaire, Filled Out With “Mostly Abortion-Rights Positions,” To The Media Even Before Returning It To NARAL. “Yesterday, Romney also aimed to head off confusion about his stance on abortion rights by answering a Mass National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League questionnaire with mostly abortion-rights positions. He offered the questionnaire to the press even before he returned it to MassNARAL…”
FLOP: Then he started thinking of national office as a Republican. ANd he happened to have a revelation

FLOP: "Romney said he had a change of heart on the issue after speaking with a stem-cell researcher, Dr. Douglas Melton. Romney claims Melton said ‘Look, you don’t have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue, because we kill the embryos after 14 days.’

‘It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life,’ Romney says.” (Karen Tumulty, “What Romney Believes,” Time, 5/21/07)

ATB
Click to expand...
 
seekerz said:
Part of my original question was: who determines ‘should’? Is it defined in some handbook or manual or perhaps by some panel?
Click to expand...
The “handbook or manual” for Catholics would be the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

http://javascript<b></b>:openWindow('cr/1883.htm');
1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7 [

](http://javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1883.htm’)😉1894 In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies. http://javascript<b></b>:openWindow('cr/1883.htm');
Click to expand...
 
No… they took it out of ours hands by making it a tax. Thats why it should go to state level… so the voters can decide whether or not we want yet another tax.
seekerz said:
And haven’t they spoken in regular elections? Unless I missed it, none have been postponed.
Click to expand...
 
The_Rock said:
The “handbook or manual” for Catholics would be the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

http://javascript<b></b>:openWindow('cr/1883.htm');
Click to expand...
Well we are not all Catholics in this country, but thanks for pointing out that the federal govt, via the ACA, seeks to:
support it [the state] in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7
Click to expand...
the need: to provide health care access to some uninsured people and to keep costs within the realm of affordable
the activity to be co-ordinated: health care provision
the common good: the health of the population
 
We also aren’t supposed to steal money from one to give to the other. Charity should be voluntary. Not mandatory.
seekerz said:
Well we are not all Catholics in this country, but thanks for pointing out that the federal govt, via the ACA, seeks to:

the need: to provide health care access to some uninsured people and to keep costs within
the realm of affordable
the activity to be co-ordinated: health care provision
the common good: the health of the population
Click to expand...
 
Jeffrey said:
We also aren’t supposed to steal money from one to give to the other. Charity should be voluntary. Not mandatory.
Click to expand...
Who is stealing? It’s called taxation. Read the history of your Church, read about the saints who were rulers of nations, read about the popes…then come back and tell me with a straight face that taxation is theft.
 
Taxation IMO is stealing… esp when not everyone pays taxes. This is an unjust law IMO.

Again… charity ( helping those who cannot afford it ) should be voluntary. Big government is a bad thing. Less freedoms.
seekerz said:
Who is stealing? It’s called taxation. Read the history of your Church, read about the saints who were rulers of nations, read about the popes…then come back and tell me with a straight face that taxation is theft.
Click to expand...
 
Jeffrey said:
Taxation IMO is stealing… esp when not everyone pays taxes. This is an unjust law IMO.

Again… charity ( helping those who cannot afford it ) should be voluntary. Big government is a bad thing. Less freedoms.
Click to expand...
Thanks, but I’d rather accept direction from my church than from the top of someone’s head - if that’s all the same to you…
 
Uh-huh. Not when I have to pick up the slack from a deadbeat who wants free to them… .not free for me healthcare. And the church hasn’t told me I have to pay for everyone’s healthcare… when I can barely afford my own.
seekerz said:
Thanks, but I’d rather accept direction from my church than from the top of someone’s head - if that’s all the same to you…
Click to expand...
 
Jeffrey said:
Taxation IMO is stealing… esp when not everyone pays taxes. This is an unjust law IMO.

Again… charity ( helping those who cannot afford it ) should be voluntary. Big government is a bad thing. Less freedoms.
Click to expand...
A pity you weren’t around to school this leader on ‘voluntary charity’ and taxation.
 
Jeffrey said:
Uh-huh. Not when I have to pick up the slack from a deadbeat who wants free to them… .not free for me healthcare. And the church hasn’t told me I have to pay for everyone’s healthcare… when I can barely afford my own.
Click to expand...
Do you have health insurance?
 
Jeffrey said:
What does that have to do with anything ? He imposed a tax on the working class ?
Click to expand...
Read the page: he imposed tithes.
Stephen established a system of tithes to support churches and pastors and to relieve the poor. Out of every 10 towns one had to build a church and support a priest.
Click to expand...
 
So that was just the ppl who went to church ? Or all citizens ? If just theppl went to church… im ok with that… .becuz it would voluntary. If it was everyone… then I would’ve disagreed.
seekerz said:
Read the page: he imposed tithes.
Click to expand...
 
**The Supreme Court’s John Roberts Changed His Obamacare Vote in May
**
The Obamacare Supreme Court ruling seemed strange. Chief Justice John Roberts’ reasoning was incoherent. The conservative’s dissent read like it was originally meant to be a majority opinion. Now, we know why. According to Jan Crawford of CBS News, John Roberts switched sides in May, withstanding a “one-month campaign” from his conservative colleagues to change his mind.
Click to expand...
“I have sources that say Roberts initially sided with conservatives to strike down the individual mandate,” said Crawford on CBS’* Face the Nation*. “Roberts, I’m told by my sources, switched sides. There was a one-month campaign to bring Roberts back into the conservative fold, led, ironically, by Anthony Kennedy.”
Click to expand...
That explains what I was hearing a few weeks ago, and got wrong. I reported, from third-hand sources, that the conservatives were furiously lobbying each other on the issue of severability of the individual mandate from the rest of Obamacare. It turns out that what was actually happening was that the conservatives were lobbying Roberts to stay with them on the law’s unconstitutionality.
Click to expand...
The irony is that Roberts didn’t have to rewrite the statute in order to issue a judicially minimalist opinion. He could have done what the Obama administration asked him to do: if the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, also sever the law’s guaranteed-issue and community rating provisions, and leave the rest of the law intact.
Click to expand...
Instead, he invented out of whole cloth a new definition of taxation that contravenes long-standing precedent. He added hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit, by way of his Medicaid ruling. And he forever tarnished his legacy as a Justice, and his promise to the nation that he would serve as an umpire, and “remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”
Click to expand...
A number of my Federalist Society friends are describing Roberts’ opinion as a kind of victory for constitutional conservatives, because Roberts sided with Kennedy et al. on the limits of the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment. But I look at it in the opposite way. It is the Federalist Society that has failed, for the umpteenth time, to help Republican Presidents appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. It’s time for conservatives to think hard about this problem, and come up with concrete solutions.
Click to expand...
forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/01/the-supreme-courts-john-roberts-changed-his-obamacare-vote-in-may
 
_Abyssinia said:
**The Supreme Court’s John Roberts Changed His Obamacare Vote in May
**

forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/01/the-supreme-courts-john-roberts-changed-his-obamacare-vote-in-may
Click to expand...
Oh my, the vexing question of how to appoint judges that will toe the line of one ideology or the next. Certainly more of a vexing and urgent question than how to do the basic business of the people and all that protecting of life, liberty and pursuit of freedom stuff…Yeah we get it, health care coverage has always excluded some people - no pressing urgency in that, not at all. And we know the market can take care of ballooning costs - one way or the next. So that leaves us with the supreme concern of the hour: how to get judges who will adhere to our ideology…
 
Seekerz in response to the premiums in the other thread, premiums have increased in Massachusetts under RomneyCare, that is a fact, and chief architect of ObamaTax is saying premiums will increase under ObamaTax. Why would he say that? He is not a conservative
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top