BIGGER TUESDAY - March 27

[Cr1028]

Right. The average person's salary can cover cancer, heart surgery, or falling off the roof and becoming paralyzed. Yeah. Normal people can afford that without insurance. That's why illness is the number one cause of bankruptcy in America, because we're just lazy and not thrifty.

Isn't that what catastrophic health insurance is for? I've heard it is relatively inexpensive compared to a full on maintenance plan.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Isn't that what catastrophic health insurance is for? I've heard it is relatively inexpensive compared to a full on maintenance plan.

Yes. But, you have to understand...people who throw money away on expensive cable plans, cigarettes, beer, etc. on a regular basis don't want to pay out of pocket for small, routine medical expenses.

So, again, we're back to the lazy wanting the prepared and productive to subsidize their slothfulness.

Everything you do in life involves a certain amount of risk. If you choose to use your money on things that are largely unnecessary and don't plan ahead with your health and health insurance, that shouldn't be my problem.

Oh...and, I'm not a millionaire either, Rick. So, throw me into the category of non-millionaires who takes care of his own health expenses.

The bottom line is, what kind of society will we have: One which rewards responsibility or one that rewards laziness?

Edited March 29, 2012 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[Censored by Laurie]

Yes. But, you have to understand...people who throw money away on expensive cable plans, cigarettes, beer, etc. on a regular basis don't want to pay out of pocket for small, routine medical expenses.

So, again, we're back to the lazy wanting the prepared and productive to subsidize their slothfulness.

Everything you do in life involves a certain amount of risk. If you choose to use your money on things that are largely unnecessary and don't plan ahead with your health and health insurance, that shouldn't be my problem.

Oh...and, I'm not a millionaire either, Rick. So, throw me into the category of non-millionaires who takes care of his own health expenses.

The bottom line is, what kind of society will we have: One which rewards responsibility or one that rewards laziness?

In all honesty...does, in your mind, "poor" unequivocally equate to "lazy"?

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Thousands of years ago...same as today:

Proverbs 6:6-8

6 Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! 7 It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, 8 yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest.

Proverbs 10:4

Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth.

Proverbs 13:4

The sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied.

Proverbs 19:15

Laziness brings on deep sleep, and the shiftless man goes hungry.

Proverbs 20:4

A sluggard does not plow in season; so at harvest time he looks but finds nothing.

Proverbs 24:30-34

30 I went past the field of the sluggard, past the vineyard of the man who lacks judgment; 31 thorns had come up everywhere, the ground was covered with weeds, and the stone wall was in ruins. 32 I applied my heart to what I observed and learned a lesson from what I saw: 33 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest-- 34 and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like an armed man.

Edited March 29, 2012 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[FirefightnRick]

Yes. But, you have to understand...people who throw money away on expensive cable plans, cigarettes, beer, etc. on a regular basis don't want to pay out of pocket for small, routine medical expenses.

So, again, we're back to the lazy wanting the prepared and productive to subsidize their slothfulness.

Everything you do in life involves a certain amount of risk. If you choose to use your money on things that are largely unnecessary and don't plan ahead with your health and health insurance, that shouldn't be my problem.

Oh...and, I'm not a millionaire either, Rick. So, throw me into the category of non-millionaires who takes care of his own health expenses.

The bottom line is, what kind of society will we have: One which rewards responsibility or one that rewards laziness?

Completely agree, again. Excellent post!

Rick

[Censored by Laurie]

Thousands of years ago...same as today:

Proverbs 6:6-8

6 Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! 7 It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, 8 yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest.

Proverbs 10:4

Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth.

Proverbs 13:4

The sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied.

Proverbs 19:15

Laziness brings on deep sleep, and the shiftless man goes hungry.

Proverbs 20:4

A sluggard does not plow in season; so at harvest time he looks but finds nothing.

Proverbs 24:30-34

30 I went past the field of the sluggard, past the vineyard of the man who lacks judgment; 31 thorns had come up everywhere, the ground was covered with weeds, and the stone wall was in ruins. 32 I applied my heart to what I observed and learned a lesson from what I saw: 33 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest-- 34 and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like an armed man.

You're quoting a Socialist to answer my question?

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

No. A dictator.

[UNT90]

My take is more like this....

(Granted, only from having read summaries and thoughts of other people)

The justices spent most of the day trying to find a way to strike down the mandate but keep most of the rest of the law (about which the constitutionality is less in doubt), then realized how integral it was to the thing, and threw up their hands in frustration. I think it's gonna stand, 5-4, with the four liberal justices upholding it on the Commerce Clause and Kennedy coming up with some reason of their own to uphold it (possibly because he sees the tax penalty as a legitimate lack of coercion).

I think you are wrong about Kennedy. I also think the mandates go down 6-3, with someone, possibly Breyer, siding with the conservative block.

I think the rest of the bill is struck down 5-4 along the normal lines, as it should be. It is not the court's job to write legislation, which they would be doing if they kicked the mandates and kept everything else. If they scrap the mandates, I think they scrap the whole thing.

Either way it goes, we are all simply guessing. Courts, especially this one, can do some really screwy things. I just hope a majority of them remember that it is their job to interpret the law, not create it.

Wouldn't it have been interesting to have been in the room today when the initial vote was taken?

Edited March 31, 2012 by UNT90

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

They take a vote before the hearing. The justices already knew the verdict before the lawyers argued. Having the lawyers in allows people to feel like they are getting their day in court. Most of the justices' work is already done before the arguments.

They vote again after the hearing, but rarely are votes changed.

[FirefightnRick]

They take a vote before the hearing. The justices already knew the verdict before the lawyers argued. Having the lawyers in allows people to feel like they are getting their day in court. Most of the justices' work is already done before the arguments.

They vote again after the hearing, but rarely are votes changed.

I had thought that they will now write opinions from here till possibly June, and during that time is when someone could be swayed one way or the other? Is that not correct?

Rick

[UNTFan23]

I had thought that they will now write opinions from here till possibly June, and during that time is when someone could be swayed one way or the other? Is that not correct?

Rick

Let's try to put his into perspective: Do you think your opinion on whether the mandate is constitutional or not will be swayed between now and whenever we hear from the SCOTUS?

[UNT90]

Let's try to put his into perspective: Do you think your opinion on whether the mandate is constitutional or not will be swayed between now and whenever we hear from the SCOTUS?

Let's hope the Supremes deal with it on a little less emotional basis as all of us. If you have a persuasive LEGAL argument, minds can be changed.

While the individual justices may have made up their mind before legal arguments, the 1st vote isn't taken until the day after legal arguments. At least that is the way Scalia characterized the process in a recent interview.

[FirefightnRick]

Let's try to put his into perspective: Do you think your opinion on whether the mandate is constitutional or not will be swayed between now and whenever we hear from the SCOTUS?

Reuters: "Obama takes takes shot at Supreme Court over healthcare."

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8310WP20120402?irpc=932

Rick

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

I had thought that they will now write opinions from here till possibly June, and during that time is when someone could be swayed one way or the other? Is that not correct?

Rick

No. When the case comes up, they either vote to take it or not take it.

If they take it, they will read all the briefs and decisions from the lower court, and begin to write their own briefs.

The hearing is then scheduled and the take a "straw vote" on the case. This result of this vote is normally how the final vote turns out.

They then have the hearing. Most justices ask questions that flesh out their/justify their vote. Justice Thomas calls this the part where they "show the public" that they have a forum/voice.

(And, when you hear Justice Thomas speak about the Court, this is when he explains why he asks no questions - the justices have already voted and they know the outcome beforehand. Although, he freely admits that he understands that some justices like to hear themselves talk.)

After the hearing, the justices meet again to determine if anyone's vote has changed (which, is rare) and to assign the opinion. Because the justice's clerks have already written extensive briefs and opinions on the case, this becomes an exercise in fleshing out what is already written out.

The public thinks very differently. They think the justices know nothing about the case and the attorneys in the hearing are presenting them new material. The truth is, the justices and the clerks have already been over the material with a fine tooth comb.

The public also thinks they then go it and discuss and fight and whatnot. They don't. They spend almost no time "debating" each other. They've already read each other's briefs on the case as well as the case's briefs.

So, it's not sexy at all. But, realize...the media and general public are full of meatheads who believe that the justices are as bellicose and partisan toward each other as the media and general public are to each other. They are not.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court really is isolated from much of the dirtiness of politics. Each president - and each president's dimwitted followers - rail against the Supreme Court's "power" to overturn their beloved pieces of legislation.

All the Supreme Court is doing is fulfilling it's role in making sure the legislative process doesn't become mob rule. Legislators are slaves to the election process. Therefore, they will often legislate whichever way the political winds are blowing at any given moment in history.

But, we have a Constitution that they should be using as a guide when making laws. The role of the Supreme Court is to see that those laws square with the Constitution. Otherwise, the Legislature and Executive branch become de facto the Judicial branch as well.

Anyone want the Congress and President to also decide what the Constitution says? If so, there is no point in having a federal judiciary. At that point, legislation simply become majority/mob rule. Checks and balances, people, checks and balances.

So, sorry to burst bubbles, but the process is far less agonizing and mysterious than the press and moronic talking heads would have you believe.

Edited April 5, 2012 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[Monkeypox]

Thankfully, the Supreme Court really is isolated from much of the dirtiness of politics. Each president - and each president's dimwitted followers - rail against the Supreme Court's "power" to overturn their beloved pieces of legislation.

All the Supreme Court is doing is fulfilling it's role in making sure the legislative process doesn't become mob rule. Legislators are slaves to the election process. Therefore, they will often legislate whichever way the political winds are blowing at any given moment in history.

But, we have a Constitution that they should be using as a guide when making laws. The role of the Supreme Court is to see that those laws square with the Constitution. Otherwise, the Legislature and Executive branch become de facto the Judicial branch as well.

Anyone want the Congress and President to also decide what the Constitution says? If so, there is no point in having a federal judiciary. At that point, legislation simply become majority/mob rule. Checks and balances, people, checks and balances.

So, sorry to burst bubbles, but the process is far less agonizing and mysterious than the press and moronic talking heads would have you believe.

This just bears (bares? beres? bairs?) repeating.