Supreme Court ObamaCare

Obama claimed that his mother died of cancer because she couldn't get proper insurance coverage.

‘The Road We’ve Traveled:’ A misleading account of Obama’s mother and her insurance dispute

President Obama : “When my mom got cancer, she wasn’t a wealthy woman and it pretty much drained all her resources”

Michelle Obama: “She developed ovarian cancer, never really had good, consistent insurance. That’s a tough thing to deal with, watching your mother die of something that could have been prevented. I don’t think he wants to see anyone go through that.”

Hanks: “And he remembered the millions of families like of his who feel the pressure of rising costs and the fear of being denied or dropped from coverage.”

The sequence, in fact, evokes a famous story that candidate Obama told during the 2008 campaign—that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, fought with her insurer over whether her cancer was a pre-existing condition that disqualified her from coverage.

“For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”

Scott writes that Dunham, who died in 1995 of uterine and ovarian cancer, had health insurance that “covered most of the costs of her medical treatment…The hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

Yes... there's something fundamentally wrong with that. It's a boldfaced lie. It's any wonder that the administration and the left in general is amazed at some of the comments they heard coming from the questioning of the judges of the Supreme Court... Obama's been lying since the get-go... he can't even get stories straight about his mothers own death just 15 year or so ago. This is the idiot and Lier in Chief... these are people who couldn't even craft a bill that stayed with in the bounds of the constitution... and now even the liberal Washington Post can't keep covering for Obama (the white black) anymore.

Now, did Barack know he was lying or had he deluded himself while he was deluding the country?

FredHayek wrote: Now, did Barack know he was lying or had he deluded himself while he was deluding the country?

What do you think Freddy? You're the only conservative I know who can roger a comment questioning Obama. You're a liberals best friend. Is that picture of Reagan taken when he started experiencing dementia? Because I think it's wearing off. Honestly. Why don't you go do some research, read the link I gave you, look into this yourself instead of assuming. The Washington Post article specifically states that the new campaign video cleverly modifies his original statements just enough to back off from his original statements in 2008. Of course he knew he was lying.

FredHayek wrote: I found it interesting that while the Supremes did make their decisions today they're allowed to change their minds and rewrite the seperate opinions until the announcement in June.

So do you think there is going to be a media push and scare tactics strategy by the Dems to change the SC votes before June? How about the chance for an earlier decision since this is so important to the economy?

Joe wrote:

FredHayek wrote: I found it interesting that while the Supremes did make their decisions today they're allowed to change their minds and rewrite the seperate opinions until the announcement in June.

So do you think there is going to be a media push and scare tactics strategy by the Dems to change the SC votes before June? How about the chance for an earlier decision since this is so important to the economy?

They DID NOT MAKE A FINAL DECISION... where did Freddy get that info from... they took "likely casting preliminary" vote... which doens't even mean they certainly voted on something... and which is certainly not the final vote.

WASHINGTON--U.S. Supreme Court justices on Friday held closed-door deliberations on President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul law, likely casting preliminary votes on how they will eventually rule on their highest-profile case in years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/3 ... 92543.html

This is how bull crap gets passed around. Get the facts straight.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Joe wrote:

FredHayek wrote: I found it interesting that while the Supremes did make their decisions today they're allowed to change their minds and rewrite the seperate opinions until the announcement in June.

So do you think there is going to be a media push and scare tactics strategy by the Dems to change the SC votes before June? How about the chance for an earlier decision since this is so important to the economy?

They DID NOT MAKE A FINAL DECISION... where did Freddy get that info from... they took "likely casting preliminary" vote... which doens't even mean they certainly voted on something... and which is certainly not the final vote.

WASHINGTON--U.S. Supreme Court justices on Friday held closed-door deliberations on President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul law, likely casting preliminary votes on how they will eventually rule on their highest-profile case in years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/3 ... 92543.html

This is how bull crap gets passed around. Get the facts straight.

Honestly answer this, do you think any of them are going to change their vote in the next 3 months? They might re-write their opinions, but the votes will stay the same.

And Obama lying about his mom? He is a perfect example of the guy who is used to no one questioning what he says.

Wait just a minute here.....so the Post and you know for a fact that Obama's mother didn't have to worry about the rising cost of cancer care and insurance coverage at the time of her treatment? Really? I've just been through it and had really good insurance......I spent as much time dealing with BC/BS as I did dealing with chemo and doctors......sure everything gets billed directly to the insurance company, then you get the statements and find out some things have been denied. They paid easily for my first chemo treatment, then denied payment for the second, It was some sort of coding error that only took 6 months to fix......then you fight with the company and the doctors to make sure everything gets coded right and sent on time. At one point I had over $6000 in denied treatments that took numerous phone calls and lots of forms to file, and fighting on the phone to get them covered.....it was a nightmare to deal with while at the same time trying to cope with the side effects of chemo and and several hospital visits. For all of you who haven't been through it don't assume you or the Washington Post know what the hell you are talking about.

FredHayek wrote: And Obama lying about his mom? He is a perfect example of the guy who is used to no one questioning what he says.

You're a liar...

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Obama claimed that his mother died of cancer because she couldn't get proper insurance coverage.

‘The Road We’ve Traveled:’ A misleading account of Obama’s mother and her insurance dispute

President Obama : “When my mom got cancer, she wasn’t a wealthy woman and it pretty much drained all her resources”

Michelle Obama: “She developed ovarian cancer, never really had good, consistent insurance. That’s a tough thing to deal with, watching your mother die of something that could have been prevented. I don’t think he wants to see anyone go through that.”

Hanks: “And he remembered the millions of families like of his who feel the pressure of rising costs and the fear of being denied or dropped from coverage.”

The sequence, in fact, evokes a famous story that candidate Obama told during the 2008 campaign—that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, fought with her insurer over whether her cancer was a pre-existing condition that disqualified her from coverage.

“For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”

Scott writes that Dunham, who died in 1995 of uterine and ovarian cancer, had health insurance that “covered most of the costs of her medical treatment…The hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

Yes... there's something fundamentally wrong with that. It's a boldfaced lie. It's any wonder that the administration and the left in general is amazed at some of the comments they heard coming from the questioning of the judges of the Supreme Court... Obama's been lying since the get-go... he can't even get stories straight about his mothers own death just 15 year or so ago. This is the idiot and Lier in Chief... these are people who couldn't even craft a bill that stayed with in the bounds of the constitution... and now even the liberal Washington Post can't keep covering for Obama (the white black) anymore.

What is fundamentally wrong is the boldfaced lie is yours. While Ann Dunham did have health insurance coverage at the time of her death, she was battling with the insurance companies over disability coverage to cover the additional expenses not covered by her health insurance. The insurance denied her coverage claiming that the uterine cancer was a preexisting condition at the time her disability insurance coverage began, although she was unaware that she had uterine cancer at that time. It was absolutely true that she spent the last few months of her life battling the insurance company to get the benefits to which she was entitled.

Why do conservatives have to make up these lies to bash the President, when the truth is so easily determined?

PrintSmith wrote: That is where you err Dog. The laws established by the general government are only supreme within the powers delegated to the federal government - which is why the individual mandate is about to be struck down along with everything that was built upon that rotten foundation. The Constitution did not, and does not, establish a central government endowed with the plenary powers of a sovereign government. What the Constitution did establish was a federal government of limited powers that were delegated from the States and to be administered through a single common entity that was populated by representatives of the legislatures of the States in equal measure to represent their equal standing as sovereign States and representatives of the citizens of those States in proportion to the percentage of the entire population of all of the States that they represented.

The federal government may not set a speed limit within a State. The limit of its authority is its ability to withhold funds appropriated from the general treasury for the maintenance of the roads if the sovereign government of the State decides not to adopt the speed that the federal government is trying to blackmail them into implementing. The limit on its authority for Medicaid is the same. The federal government may not compel participation in the program by any State, all it can do is attempt to blackmail them into complying through the threat of collecting taxes from the citizens of that State while failing to return any of the money collected from them and appropriated from the general treasury to provide them with medical care. The federal government may not send the army into any state without the consent of that State's legislature or executive when the State is not in rebellion. There are many limits on what you are trying to refer to as "the sole power of the federal government" because . . . . . . wait for it . . . . . . . the federal government is not a central government endowed with the plenary power to do whatever it wishes, whenever it wishes, to whomever it wishes. It is only supreme within its delegated powers. Those powers not delegated to it by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The States are prohibited by the Constitution from coining money, from maintaining their own army, from negotiating agreements with foreign nations or other States belonging to the union. The States are not prohibited by the Constitution from providing for the individual welfare of their citizens, and as such that power is reserved by them to be exercised by them. That is why Massachusetts can establish a law to compel its citizens to purchase health insurance and the general government cannot establish a similar law that places the citizens of every state under a similar compulsion. Massachusetts is a free, independent and sovereign State. The federal government administers the sovereign powers of the States that have been delegated to it, it is not itself a sovereign power. This is why the States have general police powers and the federal government does not have general police powers.

These are all matters of fact Dog, not opinion. These founding principles have been upheld at every level of our jurisprudence. Madison came to the Philadelphia Convention with a plan for the type of government you are desirous of - and it was rejected by the delegates to that convention who chose instead to create a representative constitutional republic of coordinate governments where the powers of the federal government were strictly limited and the powers of the State governments was virtually without any limits outside of the prohibitions to exercise their sovereignty in the areas delegated to the federal government to administer.

Only in your fantasy world. The Constitution is quite clear that all states rights are subservient to the federal authority. In your fantasy world, the United States is merely a loose union of independent countries, similar to the European Union. That is not the case here in the real world. Massachusetts is not an independent country, but is a subset of the United States. The constitution of Massachusetts is subservient to the U.S. Constitution and can not contradict the terms set forth in that document. The laws of Massachusetts can not contradict the laws and authority of the United States. It is similar to the relationship between Park County and the State of Colorado. Park County is a subset of the State of Colorado. While it may enact different laws and regulations than other counties, it may not contradict the Colorado Constitution or the laws of the state of Colorado. Unless you are under the impression that Park County too is an independent territory that has superior rights over the state of Colorado.