Obamacare and the Court
The outcome of the battle over healthcare before the Supreme Court was preordained. The majority was going to rule against Obama because he called them out in an earlier State of the Union Address over the Citizens United decision. Readers may recall that Alito was shown on TV, sitting in the audience, shaking his head. The hostility of the judges in the way they phrased their questions was payback.
On the main issue in the case, the constitutionality of the individual mandate, I agree with those who say it is unconstitutional. I think it’s un-American for the government to force people to buy a specific product or pay a penalty for not doing so. Individuals should have the right not to engage in interstate commerce, if they so choose.
Is this a defeat for the Obama administration? Sure. But it is a cloud with a silver lining. As many news commentators have pointed out, the Democrats no longer have to play defense. They can go on the offense against a Supreme Court majority that is bent on imposing its ideology on the body politic. This puts Romney (assuming he is the nominee) in the tricky position of having to explain (again) his authorship of the bill that is the model for Obamacare. Meanwhile, the president and the Democrats are free to criticize a Court that gave us Citizens United and, no doubt, will have other unpleasant surprises in store for us.
On March 15, the Wall Street Journal’s law blog carried the results of a poll on the factors that would influence in the Court in reaching a decision. From the Journal’s story:
Everyone’s gearing up for the upcoming debate on the health-care law before the Supreme Court at the end of March. Turns out, not a lot of people have faith the case will be decided on its merits.
Three-quarters of Americans say the Supreme Court will be influenced by politics when it rules on the constitutionality of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, according to a Bloomberg National Poll.
Breaking down the results by political party, more Republicans than Democrats believe the court will be guided by politics, by 74% to 67%. Eighty percent of independents say the court won’t base its decision on just legal merits. The poll also noted that among Tea Party supporters, 81% said politics will play a role in the decision, the highest percentage of any subgroup. In the nine-month term that began October 2010, the justices divided along party lines in a dozen cases, Bloomberg noted.
This poll should be an alarm bell for the Court. That 75% of Americans believe it will be guided by politics indicates a deep cynicism about the majority among the electorate. Or perhaps it simply reveals the American people’s belief that politics is broken, and it is hardly a surprise that the Court is not immune from the general disgust toward politics today.
anita says:
Paul, even if Obama brought roses to each of the R’s on the Court on the evening of the State of the Union, they would still rule against him. The 5 members who will vote to overturn the Act are loyalists who owe their seats to politics. Granted, Kennedy is somewhat more independent in his approach, but there’s nothing that Obama could have done to make any difference in the votes on the Court.
The current members need to learn the history of the Court and the lengths the initial members took to protect and shied the branch from the perception of politics. Those giants would be embarrassed by the actions of the current members and the way they have allowed the Court to be viewed.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 10:02 am
Anita, the judges on the SC are super PISSED off because Obama called them out during his State of the Union address.
If the law does down (which is very likely to happen), then Obama will be embarrassed and you can hear the political pundits laughing their a*** off about this.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 3rd, 2012 at 12:01 pm
I’m going to switch sides here. Watching the early morning news programs, I was alarmed that Obama seemed to be threatening and lecturing the Court. That is not something a former Harvard constitutional law professor should be doing. I also think it is bad tactics. Obama is probably going to be able to seize the high ground after the way the justices behaved during the oral argument. This chest-bumping has no place in the system.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Yeah we’ve never seen politics on the high court before/snark. Americans have been watching this for 40 years plus. When it was liberal ideology the press applauded. Paul, even you have noted the problems the court created on Roe v. Wade.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 9:35 am
Do you know why the press applauded? Because the signature case of that era ended segregation. What is the monumental cased of this Court? Citizens United. I’ll take the libs, thank you.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Brown v. Board of Education 1954 did not end segregation. It got things moving though.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 5:55 pm
“With all deliberate speed sounds like “the end” to me.
ATTICUS says:
December 12, 2000 — the day when SCOTUS lost much of its respect,
Bush vs. Gore, 531 US 98 (2000), and has done nothing to reclaim that respect…
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 7:33 pm
There are pills avaliable to help with your Bush Derangement Syndrome. I believe the dimorat party hands them out for a small donation.
Reply »
Willie Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 9:14 am
Not even Romney will ask for a Bush 43 endorsement.
Reply »
Bob Lee Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 9:13 am
True. This court has proven itself to be the most activist and political in recent history. Obama challenged this ethically challenged body, and will lose. He can now run against the supremes and the ideology they espouse. He (Obama) might just win again.
Reply »
Plebes says:
Ds have their talking points. A week ago they had faith in the court. Now our supreme court is a tea party. Best thing of week was the D on CNN saying Rs should read bill. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.
Obama opposed Hillary on forcing young people to buy into their employers plan. Pandering to youth vote. If Romney positions have evolved … Can’t wait to hear why Obama hasn’t visited the world leaders he promised to while campaigning against hill.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I love that everyone thinks that Obama should be able to blast the Court from his bully pulpit and that the Court should just shut up and take it. There is/was a thing in this country called “separation of powers.”
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 9:02 am
But that is how the system works. The president gets to blast the Court and the Court should just shut up and take it. The Court has the advantage of having the last word.
Reply »
Barry Jagoda says:
Paul,
I hope you turn out to be wrong on the mandate. This is simply an element, though an important one, of the Congressional health legislation. The Supreme Court should defer to the legislative branch.
All residents of the United States are already involved the health care system and cannot escape “interstate commerce,” as you idealistically state the case.
It is not helpful for you to throw out the term “Un-American” as though this phrase has any meaning. Use of the term reminds one of red-scare phraseology of old. Warm regards,
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 7:36 pm
HA HA HA HA HA HA “The Supreme Court should defer to the legislative branch”. What drivel. I’ll bet you loved it when “they” embraced Roe V Wade. I did. But now you’re all butthurt over Gore losing in the court. AWWWWWWWWWWW po’, po’ baby.
How about totally ignorant of the function of the government and the intent of the Constitution?
Reply »
Kristy says:
Paul, I’m willing to bet you a nice bottle of wine(not a $10,000 Romney bet) that the court upholds the law. If you want odds, I’ll even spot you that 1) Roberts writes the majority opinion and 2) it is a minimum 6-3, possibily 7-2 decision.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 9:38 am
Kristy’s scenario is possible, if the Court’s decision is based upon deferring to acts of Congress.
Reply »
Pat Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Until recently, deferring to Congress happened to be the conservative jurisprudence.
The Court was stupid for taking this case. There is only one way it wins–by building a large (and perhaps impossible) majority. Every other situation involves the Court losing prestige in the eyes of the public, the faith of at least one political party, and their relevance for a generation.
Reply »
Russ Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Who would have thought that SCOTUS’s unaminous decision on Perry v Perez by instructing the San Antonio Court to adhere to the wishes of our own Lege could be an influential factor on how SCOTUS rules on Healthcare Reform. Talking about another shoe dropping!
Reply »
Fiftycal says:
I see the socialist side still can’t believe that their “mandate” isn’t popular. Well, about 2/3rds of the population recognizes that obamacare/rationed/socialized medicine would be the last domino. The death panels would turn this country into another FAILED socialist state. WE, the people, recognize that once the “state” is responsible for our care, we will be nothing but chattel. And the “state” will have us do or not do whatever is in the STATES best interest.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 8:23 am
The real death panel is not having a way for people to acquire the care they need. Everyone is part of the healthcare market. The ones of us that have insurance pay much more for simple procedures because of the emergency room visits of the non insured. The uninsured will get treated to a point but after that they will not, not get the tests needed to determine underlying factors such as cancer and if they do get some treatment it will be to late but we pay for it anyway. The Healthcare Law wouldn’t have a basis to even be in court if the penalty had been called a tax instead of a penalty. Insurance stocks are going up right now so what do speculators know or think they know? Another 5 to 4 decision is bad for the image of the court. If they are going to vote for or against the law they should have a lot of discussions about how politicizing that is. One justice or another needs to convince another on to come to his or her side, and I mean convince to come over to the other side, not just for optics. It really needs to be at least a 6 to 3 either way. It is a non issue to me personally except that I can keep my graduate school daughter bound daughter on my insurance for another two years and I’m disgusted that a simple day surgery for me cost $17,000.00 dollar charge (about 3 hours from check in to check out) from the hospital. They gouged my insurance company and me to pay for other people that don’t pay at all. The law being tossed if it is will energize Democrats despite what J.J.B. says .
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 9:39 am
Fifty Cal is never one to let the facts get in the way. There are no death panels.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 10:02 am
Except in Texas. Already.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 7:58 pm
“Integral to the Obama Administration’s stated mission to drive down what Americans choose to spend for life-saving and health-preserving health care, the IPAB is charged with a key role in suppressing health care spending by limiting what treatment doctors are allowed to give their patients,” she says. “While the focus throughout this debate has been on the IPAB’s (Independent Payment Authority Board) authority to cut Medicare with very limited Congressional authority to override or alter those cuts, National Right to Life has been emphasizing a still graver concern – one at the core of rationing in ObamaCare.”
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/22/house-votes-to-repeal-ipab-obamacare-death-panels/
Gee, an “independent” Board that gets to decide who gets what treatment when. Like IF you were a smoker and now that you are 60 and have lung cancer, well, “you brought it on yourself” and the IPAB won’t let your single-payer rationed health care “system” pay for any more treatment, like Berwick’s model, England. Take a pill and die quiet. Or like Obama said, “Maybe instead of a pacemaker, she could take some pills”.
Now WHO is “short” of facts, Paul?
Reply »
Willie Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 9:15 am
You are, podna. Give it a rest.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Payback is a bitch…
When Obama loses and Justices Breyer and Ginsburg are replaced giving conservatives a 7-2 advantage, that will be Obama’s legacy.
He killed the dem party.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 4:45 pm
haha except in your scenario the liberal romney will be president, and will probably nominate justices who are more lefty than the ones obama would name.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Oh, JBB, you can’t kill a party in a two-party system.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 7:15 pm
really? Name the last dem elected to statewide office in Tx?
Expect the same on the national scene for years
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 5:40 pm
If I remember right, JBB, that is exactly the prediction that Karl Rove was making a decade ago. Didn’t turn out so well for him.
Blue Dogs Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 10:05 am
Burka, LBJ did say, he handed the South to the Republicans on a silver platter by signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, which caused the political trends we’re seeing today in the South.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 9:56 pm
There are laxatives for people that are full of Sh–t. Maybe you need to go to the pharmacy or the Dollar Store to get some. Just saying, there is a Democratic Party in Texas that will out grow your narrow minded opinions.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 6:18 am
Kenneth you finally got one right.
“your narrow minded opinions.”
the reason why dems are losers.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 10:04 am
Benard, if Obama wins re-election, he’ll put Jennifer Granholm (the former Michigan governor) to the Supreme Court to replace Ginsburg (when and if she retires).
However, if he CHOKES to Romney in November, Romney will have the opportunity to clean house and appoint new judges, which will be severly devastating to the left.
Reply »
truth says:
The Heritage Foundation pushed the individual mandate for decades. When a Republican gets back in office they will push it again. Are you calling them socialists?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 7:51 am
One of the great ironies here — the mandate goes back to GHW Bush & Dems wouldn’t pass it then. Now the GOP Wing of SCOTUS says it’s unconstitutional. Is it JUST politics? Or is it just “single payer” vs. the most inefficient medical system in the developed world? I’m a liberal, but the mandate IS unconstitutional. Dems made a deal with the Devil and the Devil repaid them. Cost is and always has been the biggest issue in healthcare. The way to fix it is exclude insurance companies from the system, not force us to buy from them! That’s the Republican (unconstitutional) way!
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 8:14 am
In other words, the individual mandate was a GOP “poison pill” that defeated Democrats’ efforts to both make healthcare a right of American citizenship instead of a privilege and reform a horribly inefficient, capitalist (selfish, money-grabbing) system in an arena (healthcare) where fear and emotion prevails over reason. Now, all of us need to accept it for what it is instead of blaming SCOTUS, and get in with the business of refusing to play 17th or 13th or whatever it is fiddle in the world when it comes to healthcare.
Reply »
longleaf says:
I am thinking Barry Jagoda must be connected to the health insurance industry in some way and was salivating over those 30 million new forced customers.
I also think Kristy may well be right in that the Supreme Whores’ favoritism toward the insurance cartel may trump their eagerness to collectively knee Obama in the groin.
All sane First World countries practice some form of single-payer. I understand that leaves the U.S. out. And, of course, that means there are tens of millions of mentally ill folks walking around without treatment in this country (“packing” in many cases, as we saw in Sanford, Fla.).
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 9:06 am
Actually, Barry Jagoda is a longtime friend of mine, from Houston, who won an Emmy for CBS (shared by others) for a story on the Nixon Tapes as soon as they were released.
Reply »
HD says:
The U.S. of the civics books is disappearing into the past: Election results are no longer respected (Bush v Gore), it’s now one dollar, one vote (Citizens United), and the judiciary feels free to perform legislative functions (coming soon).
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 8:51 am
The U.S. of the past includes “extensions” like (a) bankruptcy that violates the contracts clause, (b) unconstitutional delgation of legislative authority to agencies, and (c) penumbras of individual rights that appear out of nowhere. All good things as far as I’m concerned, and a decision to uphold ObamaCare would have been the same thing — complete obliteration of a provision of the Constitution that many thought was already gone, but no, it’s still there because five justices decided not to do away with it completely. Even as a liberal, I don’t want the government telling me I have to buy something from corporatists. Let’s fix the healthcare system instead.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 8:02 pm
Gee, maybe there should be a TEST before citizens are “allowed” to vote? Someone that could be swayed by a Youtube video or a sound bite from a TV commercial might not be ELIGIBLE to vote?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 6:20 am
When democrats stole the elction in 1960, Nixon manned up and conceeded. You dems are still whinning about 2000?
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 10:06 am
Books, Gore lost the election once he failed to carry his own homestate of Tennessee and Clinton’s Arkansas and even New Hampshire: all he had to do was win one of the 3 states I mentioned regardless of Florida.
Reply »
Bill says:
The Supreme Court influenced by politics?? You will note that eight of the nine justices were appointed after Bork.
Reply »
Anon says:
It’s very hard to take any liberal complaints about partisanship or activist courts seriously. The 4 liberal justices are nakedly partisan as well. They like activist courts, they just don’t like the results when it isn’t a liberal court making the decision.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 9:46 am
The liberal justices make a lot of sense to me, most of the time, but I’m a sucker for dissents.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 10:07 pm
I hope the justices will not have a controversial 5 to 4 decision. Six to 3 either way would be better. Time will tell, however it makes the court seem too political when the decisions are 5 to 4. It is possible though that is what we we will get.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 6:22 am
“but I’m a sucker”
as LBJ always said if you tell a lie enough dems will believe it.
Reply »
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name says:
Obamacare may survive if the Court takes the position that the enforcement mechanism for the mandate is a tax that dare not speak its name. (Sort of like me and the person I am attached to.) Putting this in the taxing power column instead of the Commerce Clause column may be the way to win in the Court.
Reply »
Palmer Glacier says:
The SCOTUS is the supreme arbiter of what is and is not constitutional.
Neither the Executive nor Legislature should be “calling out” the Justices for their decisions.
If the President disagrees with a decision of the Court, she/he should lobby the Legislature and the States to amend the Constitution. There is a process to do so; it has been done many times.
The intent of Constitutional checks and balances is to protect the people from their own government. Given that perspective, the health insurance mandate of Obamacare is clearly unconditional and should be reversed.
The entire legacy of overreach with the commerce clause is based on prior cases where “progressive” courts went off the tracks by expanding, beyond reason, the powers of the government.
Reply »
Crazy Uncle says:
Paul
So, the reason the court has made liberal rulings is because Conservative Presidents criticized them. Surely, you were kidding.
Reply »
Crazy Uncle says:
As far as McCain Feingold is concerned, Why should SS collaborator George Soros be the only billionaire to make contributions.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
want cheeze with that whine?
Gawd this is hilarious….
Reply »
Alan says:
“I’ve never understood why regulating by making people go buy something is somehow more intrusive than regulating by making them pay taxes and then giving it to them…the Heritage Foundation said let’s do an individual mandate because it keeps it within free enterprise. The alternative was single payer. And they didn’t want that…So now all of a sudden the free-market alternative becomes unconstitutional and terribly intrusive where a government imposition and government-run project would not be? I don’t get it. Well, I do get it. It’s politics.”
-Charles Fried, Solicitor General to Ronald Reagan, defending the constitutionality of the individual mandate
Reply »
Aynahneemuss Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Can I assume you’re ok with the rest of the Reagan admin then?
Reply »
Alan Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 9:30 pm
I’ve read a couple of Fried’s books and respect his work as a legal scholar. Had I been of voting age when Reagan was a candidate, I would have voted for him. But I don’t see how that’s relevant. My point is that there is a conservative case to be made for an individual mandate. But it comes from the intellectually serious school of conservatism, not the Tea Party/JBB school of conservatism.
Reply »
Anon Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 9:39 am
It’s relevant because you referenced the Reagan administration link as support that the individual mandate is a conservative proposal. There certainly is a case to be made for it, and an equally strong, if not stronger, case against it. But the “case” you make is the same as the one that all the lib pundits made which is essentially “whatever, you can’t be serious, of course it’s legal, duh, only silly people don’t agree.” But that’s a PR campaign not a legal argument.
John Johnson says:
Obamacare won’t work, but neither has the system we have been stuck with for the last decade. Both are rigged, through legislation that has been purchased, and all the Big’s have benefited while the patient pays more and more and more.
You two groups on opposite ends of the spectrum keep going at each other’s throats. The insurance companies, pharmecutical companies, device mfgr’s, and physician’s could care less. They win no matter what.
You want to scream about what the price of gas has done in the last decade…how about comparing the percentage to the increase in anything related to medical care…a biopsy, a stich, an x-ray…anything.
Until we make it illegal to buy votes, the Big’s win no matter the category…medical care, fuel costs, market manipultion, air quality, etc.
The Big’s will continue to have their way with us no matter what the SCOTUS rules, so my suggestion is to save your angry words for the men and women who represent you in D.C. They are, by definition, political whores.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Amen John Johnston.
None of the Bigs took a haircut with Obamacare. In fact, health insurance company profits should soar if the mandate ends up being implemented.
I am in Costa Rica on vacation. A local friend made an appointment and I went to see a doctor. A radiologist.
The first, and most shocking, part of the experience was we showed up early to complete the paperwork. You know the drill. You have to complete five forms, and 30% (at least) of the information is the same on all five forms.
Uh, there were no forms. None. Zero. Zip. The only time I picked up a pen was at the end to sign the credit card slip.
We go back into the examining room where the doctor has a 3D ultrasound and he proceeded to look around the corners in my abdomen. Amazing! He even measured the sizes of ducts.
Very, very thorough. He spent at least a half hour examining me, and then wrote a report (in English) and gave us copies of the still photos of the various organs.
All for $60. Yep, $60.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Great. Do away with money. Then we’ll all be happy. Oh, and anonymouse, yah, the CR doc could do that because you HAD $60. About a weeks wages in CR.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Minimum wage is $100/week, Fiftycal.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 1st, 2012 at 11:01 pm
What’s your point, 50 cal.? How does what someone makes per week in Costa Rica have to do with our getting screwed here in the U.S.? If the doctor can do a 3D abdominal ultrasound for $60 down there with the most sophisticated piece of equipment around, why was I just charged over $400 for a standard x-ray from a 20 year old piece of equipment to pinpoint a kidney stone? The CR doctor was obviously making enough money at $60 to service debt on the equipment and put some into his pocket. We’re getting gouged.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
DEms you forced Obamacare on us, now we’re pushing back. Deal with it.
Hows that hopey changey stuff working?
What? You say it isn’t?
Then maybe its time to crank out a race riot or two…
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 3:57 am
How’s that Romney dude working out for you? The individual mandate was a REPUBLICAN idea and not Obama’s. “Hopey changey,” will be just fine whether the court rules the individual mandate constitutional or not.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 6:24 am
I love Romney, he’s the best candidate libs have ever picked for us.
Reply »
Dr. Feelgood Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 4:38 pm
Repugs cant pick their own without help.
Eyeswideopen Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 8:13 am
Oh, Frank, don’t you grow weary of being part of the one snake calling the other slimy crowd? They’re both snakes and they’re both fed and coddled by the same special interests. Want an example? Bet you think Wall Street is alligned with Republicans, don’t you. Well how about Obama caving into WS pressure and not appointing Elizabeth Warren to head up the WS oversight commission? Where are the changes promised by Obama with regards to hedgefunder’s and derivatives traders? He says he can’t do anything about gas prices, while government guy appointed by Bush and retained by O says that this speculation adds about $7.50 to the average tank of gas. Don’t be a rube, Frank. They all stink.
Reply »
Anon Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 5:41 pm
States have plenary powers, the federal government does not.
Reply »
JJ compañero says:
Let me get this straight Paul. You think the SCOTUS will legislate from the bench because they got snubbed in a speech? If so, they have the backbone of Newt who shut down government over AF1 seating arrangements.
Reply »
Willie Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 9:41 am
The SCOTUS will certainly punish this president for his audacity to questions Citizens United. That is what the right wing does….payback.
Reply »
rw says:
I don’t think that it is a foregone conclusion that the law will be struck down.
The law is a joke, whether or not it is constitutional. It’s ridiculous to use the hostile in describing the Court’s questions. Someone has to ask tough questions – the press certainly won’t, and even if they did, this Administration wouldn’t answer them.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Note to Paul Burka:
I am from Tuscaloosa, AL. The 2 main high schools there Tuscaloosa High Black Bears (the 95% white school)and the Druid Dragons (the black school) did not desegregate until 1979, 25 years after Brown v. Board.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_High_School_(Tuscaloosa,_Alabama)
“Central High School was formed by the merger of Tuscaloosa High School and Druid High School in 1979 in response to a federal desegregation order.”
Back in the 1970′s T-High and Druid used to have rivalry baskeball games that filled up 15,000 in Univ. of Alabama’s Memorial Coliseum.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 10:08 am
Morrow, you can thank George Corely Wallace for that because he race-baited his way to the Alabama Governor’s Mansion and severely destroyed any hope of improving race relations down there forever.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Morrow, why don’t you start your own blog and disappear from this one? Take anyone ignorant enough to respond to one of your goofy or totally off subject rants with you.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Blue Dog, read this and learn something: http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2000-03/wallace.html
Following the 1976 defeat, Wallace returned to Alabama to complete his third term. At the same time, his second marriage, to Cornelia Wallace, came to an end.
What followed was a period of reflection. “And so, one by one, he picks up the telephone and he begins calling his old enemies, the people who he had used as kind of punching bags in the 1960s and asked for their forgiveness,” says Dan Carter. One of the people Wallace called was civil rights leader John Lewis, who had been beaten by state troopers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965. “He literally poured out his soul and heart to me. It was almost a confession,” says Lewis in the film.
Whether it was his conscience or political expediency that sparked him to ask for forgiveness will never be known. But when he reentered politics for the 1982 governor’s race, he sought and won the vote of black constituents, and he worked with black leaders once elected.
And as for “Anonymous,” I don’t know if you are capable of learning anything.
Reply »
Kool Aide Man says:
OH YEAH!!!!!
Reply »
Tim says:
I’m optimistic this means we’ll actually get real socialized medicine out of this. If it’s illegal to have a market based solution then what other choice do we have?
Reply »
Cowboy Bill says:
The health care bill certainly revs up the faithful on the right, doesn’t it? Name calling, trolling and baiting,throwing out misinformation and BS. The talking pinheads on Fox are about to explode. Bottom line is that our country has a broken health care system now and conservative answers, liberal answers…none work. Only way to get our populace the health care that is their right is to go to pure socialized medicine.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 12:20 pm
You two socialists might be right about socialized medicine if we can’t do away with Obamacare and open medical care up to real competition. In case you haven’t noticed, there is none. The entire process is controlled by the insurance companies, and the ones who control it all don’t really compete against each other. They have divided up the pie into regions with just a little overlap.
When your doctor tells you to go to “X” lab for an x-ray do you ever ask if you have a choice where to go get it taken? Probably not. Ever ask a doctor what a surgery prcedure will cost? If you do, they will give you a bunch of verbal Swiss cheese…”I’m not sure. Here’s what the physician charges… don’t know about the anesthesiologist, or the x-rays, or the lab work, or the operating room, or the hospital stay. You’ll have to contact each of them.” The bill you receive is in hieroglyphics with codes instead of specifics. The entire system is set up to confuse. The system will suck with Obamacare as it has before O-care. The healtcare providers and insurers will have their way with us until we cut off the flow of money for bought votes.
Reply »
donuthin says:
Hear lots of criticism but not many suggestions for fixing a system that is broke. Mostly rhetoric that is overly simplistic. Frankly, I don’t think many, even those from the far right, are willing to say that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it irrespective if you are a child, elderly or irresponsible middle aged. So unless you are willing to go there, someone has to pay. Who and how?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
America has the finest healthcare system in the world. Dems stop trying to fix what ain’t broke.
After the 2012 election and dems crawl back under their rocks, me and my gang are gonna smoke a big ol’ cigar and laugh at you.
Reply »
Dr. Feelgood Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 4:38 pm
You are smoking crack if you honestly believe that.
Reply »
mightcan says:
If I accept your argument, “I think it’s un-American for the government to force people to buy a specific product or pay a penalty for not doing so.”
How do you propose that those opting out are denied care when they or situations warrant?
Reply »
Mark in Ft Worth says:
JBB you just exposed a whole bunch of ignorance if you think we have the best healthcare system. The last worldwide ranking by the World Health Org. shows the US at 37th – an old study sure, but I don’t think we’ve come any further up the ladder in 12 years. You might want to cut down on the cigars, unless you’re one of the lucky ones and have pretty good insurance.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Mark learn what certain words mean. Start with this one “subjective”.
All of the ones ranked AHEAD of the US had longer wait times to see a dr. ie their health care was rationed.
The US has the best healthcare system in the world.
here’s is another one that pisses you libs off, The US is the best place to live in the world.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 4:12 pm
sure, as long as you arent sick, and if you are then you can afford $1000+ in monthly insurance bills. then youre getting the best health care in the world. but if youre poor, youre screwed. drop by JPS in FW or Parkland in Dallas sometime.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
April 5th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
And Obamacare is going to make this better HOW? By forcing everyone into the medicaid system that overloads JPS and Parkland and every other hospital in Texas that has an ER? Do you know ANYTHING about Ocare? Ocare is NOT “insurance”. It is single payer. Because there is not an insurance company, profit or non-profit, that can survive under the rules set out in Ocare. And it will end employer paid insurance unless you want to pay a $400 a month “tax” on your “cadillac” plan, that is mandated by Ocare but was not “grandfathered” becuz your 2009 insurance plan didn’t cover transgender operations or whatever. Oh and now 85% of all premiums must be spent on “patient care”. That’s going to be pretty rough for a for-profit company that has to pay 40% TAX on what it “profits”. No, Ocare is supposed to make the po’ happy that everyone will have the same piss poor “health care” they have had under medicaid.
Doc Jones Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Your lack of knowledge on this issue is staggering. The US does not have the best healthcare system, it has runaway costs, quality of the care ranks below top ten. Hospital stays are driven by insurers and patients are not happy with results. Perhaps watching Fareed Zacarias CNN report woudl enlighten you.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Ok liberals, you got your marching orders,
“if Obamacare is overturned by the Courts it will be judicial activism”
time for the riots….
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Republicans are the ones that complain the most about what they call “activist judges.” I would hope that the decision is at least six to three which ever way they decide.
Reply »
Cowboy Bill Reply:
April 2nd, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Dead right on that one. Let’s see the right wing complain. Hypocrites.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks says:
People who have insurance pay by by subsidizing those that don’t. The emergency room is where uninsured people go and that is the most expensive medical care there is. If the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional which is a real possibility although not predetermined as Paul wrote we will be back where we started before the political capital was spent to try and solve the vexing problem of getting quality care at a reasonable price.
Reply »
anonymous says:
Paul, if you were to poll voters on their knowledge/concern about Citizens United and Obamacare, you’d see apathy on the former and apoplectic fits on the latter. To say Obama will be free to “go after” the Court on Citizens United … uh, zzzz. Who cares.
People – especially old people who vote – really care about the case of our lifetime that was just argued before the Court. I seriously doubt Obama’s mention during a speech really affects them one iota as they decide the most important case they’ll likely ever consider. I actually laughed out loud and said “you’ve got to be kidding” when I read what you wrote.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
As ex-Speaker Pelosi said “you should go to jail if you opt out of forced healthcare”.
Isn’t this the same party who says they are pro-choice?
Just not for Obamacare?
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Dear Lord, please keep this fool out of the presidency. Permanently.
Amen.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/02/report-rick-perry-used-painkillers-to-help-him-get-through-debates/
Texas Gov. Rick Perry was under the influence of painkillers during televised presidential debates over the last year to help relieve severe back pain, according to a soon-to-be released eBook on the 2012 Republican race for president obtained by The Daily Caller.
“It became an open secret that he was using painkillers in sufficient dosages to keep him standing through the two-hour debates,” write the authors of “Inside the Circus.”
A source provided TheDC with an advance copy of the eBook, authored by Mike Allen and Evan Thomas. The book comes out Tuesday.
The authors imply that the painkillers may have led to a humorous incident before an October debate in New Hampshire when the “manager of a rival campaign” overheard Perry belting out the song “I’ve Been Working on the Railroad” while in the bathroom.
“Wondering who was making all the noise, the campaign manager turned his head and saw, to his surprise, the governor of Texas,” the book states. “Perry came down the row of about twenty urinals and stood companionably close by.
Allen and Thomas continue: “Nonplussed, the campaign manager made a hasty exit; as the bathroom door closed, he could hear Perry still merrily singing away: “I-I-I’ve been working on the ra-a-i-i-l-road, all-l-l the live-long day . . .”
Perry’s weak debate performances are an enduring memory of his short run for president.
Reply »
Longhornfan Reply:
April 3rd, 2012 at 2:51 am
At least he wasn’t chanting “hullabalu caneck caneck” followed by “Saw varsity’s horns off”.
Reply »
Julie says:
There’s no doubt the Supreme Court will throw out the health care mandate. The only question that remains is whether the court will decide to void the rest of the health care law.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
April 3rd, 2012 at 11:35 am
Julie, what’s Obama gonna do, hire some millionaire to kill the conservative judges like the movie, “the Pelican Brief” ?
Reply »
Longhornfan says:
The only countries in the world with a functional health care system that covers all its citizens and make use of private insurance are the likes of Germany, The Netherlands, and Switzerland. They ALL have an individual mandate to end the freeloading. The individual mandate in the Baucus/Obama Law, or Wyden/Bennett for that matter, is the last hope of having a system built upon private insurance. Without it, companies will continue to drop coverage as the premiums spiral upward as more and more companies drop coverage. That cost for the uninsured is $1,000/yr per family and rising. When it all comes crashing down in the next 10 years, the only remedy allowed by Scalia will be a Medicare for everyone Canadian style system that will be perpetually underfunded by gutless politicians unwilling to raise the funds to pay for it. At that point, thinking folks will look back and ask themselves, “What in the hell was Scalia thinking?!!!”
BTW, if an individual mandate is unconstitutional, why in the world am I, as an individual physician, required to treat a total stranger who can not pay me but can sue me into bankruptcy under the EMTALA Act (go to Wikipedia if you don’t know what that is)?
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
April 5th, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Dunno. Why don’t you get the AMA to start a constitutional challenge to the law? Oh, right, AMA WANTS rationed, socialized healthcare. Are you an individual practitioner or an “employee”?
Reply »
Longhornfan Reply:
April 8th, 2012 at 2:16 am
My point is that there is already precedent for an individual mandate in that there is one for physicians on call. I’m a member of a private group, but EMTALA affects ALL phsicians, whether “employed” or self billing. As long as the Hill-Burton Act and EMTALA require that those who are acutely ill are to be teated regardless of the ability to pay, there can NEVER be a “free” market in healthcare. Imagine what groceries would cost if the super market had to hand out free food to the hungry.
Reply »
Mark the Shark says:
Can a supreme court justice be impeached? Jefferson thought it should be so. If this court finds healthcare unconstitutional, then the justices that do so should be canned.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
April 5th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
I don’t think the issue is finding “healthcare unconstitutional”. See, doctors and “healthcare” go back to the beginning of time, even tho our forebears thought “bleeding” could cure some diseases. SCOTUS will find that requiring participation in a scheme to profit insurance companys is unconstitutional. Because a government that can require you to buy insurance is a government that can tell you to stop smoking, drinking, having gay sex, etc., because YOU are now chattel and it is in the governments best interest to keep you healthy, as long as you are productive and can benefit the GOVERNMENT. And once you are no longer “productive”, you can expect the government to cease expending funds on you and your health. QV, “Matrix” movies and Soylent Green.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
April 5th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
I believe the philosophy of the Obama regime is “From each according to his ability, to each according to what central planning decides to give you”.
Reply »
zap glomer says:
Obamacare will survive because one out of seven blacks, one out of ten Hispanics and one out of twelve Italians (thank Fumento) have HIV/AIDS. Do you really want them biting you on the street corner if you refuse to donate?
Reply »