Amazon 7 #126 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteSO when some slimeball shoots you and you do not have insurance... cool we get to leave you laying in the gutter bleeding out because you did not adequately plan for this contingency in your life, I bet a bunch of your fellow travellers are good with that, Like always, you ignore the question and spout crap. You want to force people to do the things YOU want. But are unwilling to follow that same standard when YOU don't want to..... Hypocrisy at its best. BTW, I have plenty of health insurance. It is important to me, so I get it. Unlike you, I don't expect others to carry my weight. TSK TSK TSK... way off base... as usual Master of the Universe indeed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,557 #127 February 2, 2011 I'd be willing to bet that Amazon has insurance, so she doesn't expect others to carry her weight. I think the difference in the arguments is whether you see others' failure to carry their weight as a drain on a system that you are a part of. There are people who don't have insurance on themselves. Do you see that as (in part) your problem? If not, why not, and if so, why so? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #128 February 2, 2011 QuoteMaster of the Universe indeed Hey Mods... Isnt that a PA????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #129 February 2, 2011 QuoteI'd be willing to bet that Amazon has insurance, so she doesn't expect others to carry her weight. I think the difference in the arguments is whether you see others' failure to carry their weight as a drain on a system that you are a part of. There are people who don't have insurance on themselves. Do you see that as (in part) your problem? If not, why not, and if so, why so? Wendy P. Good for her The problem is her and those like her want me to pay (even more than I do now) to care for those who dont In essance, give away more liberties to a run away gov"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,557 #130 February 2, 2011 Who is paying for people without insurance who go to the ER now? You've said in the past that you're all in favor of the little 5-year-old girl without insurance being treated. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #131 February 2, 2011 QuoteWho is paying for people without insurance who go to the ER now? You've said in the past that you're all in favor of the little 5-year-old girl without insurance being treated. Wendy P. I am You are But it is not enough Want more? The whole idea of the bill was to lower insurance costs. At least that is how it was sold We are now seeing from those studying this bill that this will not happen So why go forward? Easy Power and control What is next?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #132 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteWho is paying for people without insurance who go to the ER now? You've said in the past that you're all in favor of the little 5-year-old girl without insurance being treated. Wendy P. I am You are But it is not enough Want more? The whole idea of the bill was to lower insurance costs. At least that is how it was sold We are now seeing from those studying this bill that this will not happen So why go forward? Easy Power and control What is next? As long as the BIG BUG BRAIN is in control.. and a REAGAN activist judge is doing it.. you are ok with it.. got it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcUvtnL5p4Y Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,557 #133 February 2, 2011 Who pays for her? That was my question. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #134 February 2, 2011 QuoteI'd be willing to bet that Amazon has insurance, so she doesn't expect others to carry her weight. She still clearly wants others to be forced to carry the weight against their own desires. QuoteI think the difference in the arguments is whether you see others' failure to carry their weight as a drain on a system that you are a part of. Sure, but the solution is not to make a mandate to force me to do what I am already doing willingly. The solution is not to enlarge the size of the Govt and grant more powers to them. The solution is not to piss on the Constitution and force people to be a part of something they do not want to be a part of. Anymore than the Govt should be able to force you to own a gun to try and reduce crime, or the Govt force you to not smoke or drink, or the govt to force you to eat your vegetables. Would you support the Govt mandating that everyone stop smoking and drinking, no more high risk sports, everyone must drive a volvo, and everyone must eat three servings of dark green veggies a day? QuoteThere are people who don't have insurance on themselves. Do you see that as (in part) your problem? If I choose not to have HC, then in a free market I should also be forced to deal with the actions of my choice. If that means I do not get the heart lung transplant... Then I made that choice myself. I should not be allowed to make you pay for it since I didn't want to bother to carry insurance. Insurance is not really that expensive. The majority of people could have some level of HC coverage. They choose not to get any. It kills me to see skydivers with 5k in gear spending 25 dollars a jump and complain about not being able to afford HC coverage. My Wife sells HC coverage. She has approached many jumpers and offered to talk to them about HC coverage. They all say they can't afford it.... Yet they make 10-15 jumps a mth, fly off to play in the tunnel, go to the nationals/boogies... Etc. They spend thousands of dollars a year playing. I like watches.... I collect them (its an addition). I was talking to a guy that had a nice Tag Monaco watch and was complaining about not having HC coverage. Its a freaking 4k watch and he is complaining about not being able to afford HC????? In both cases I pointed out that they could quit jumping or sell the watch and buy HC coverage. They both looked at me like I was stupid. So no.... I don't feel bad when a person who is spending thousands a year on junk and BS complains they do not have HC. Now a person who truly can't afford coverage.... They should have some help. But we already have programs for that. But I see no need to force citizens to do something to allow people who do not have the correct priorities to have everything they want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #135 February 2, 2011 QuoteWho pays for her? That was my question. Wendy P. In the ER we do By the way No comment to the AZ imigration law comparison by anyone here Why do you suppose that is"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #136 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteWho pays for her? That was my question. Wendy P. In the ER we do By the way No comment to the AZ imigration law comparison by anyone here Why do you suppose that is Because it doesn't "feel" good. It's a hard choice, and people are to squeamish to make a stand. It is too easy to be a hypocrite.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #137 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteWho pays for her? That was my question. Wendy P. In the ER we do By the way No comment to the AZ imigration law comparison by anyone here Why do you suppose that is Because it doesn't "feel" good. It's a hard choice, and people are to squeamish to make a stand. It is too easy to be a hypocrite. +1"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,557 #138 February 2, 2011 Because the Arizona immigration law hasn't been vetted by the Supreme Court yet. There is an injunction against some of its provisions being enforced. If that injunction didn't exist, then it would be enforced until the SC ruled. The injunction was filed and granted. The reason such an injunction couldn't be continued in the Iowa case is that the highest possible court (the Iowa Supreme Court) ruled. There was no one else to appeal it to. Their word is final. An injunction has not been successfully filed against the health care law as far as I know. Wendy P. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #139 February 2, 2011 QuoteBecause the Arizona immigration law hasn't been vetted by the Supreme Court yet.neither of them has There is an injunction against some of its provisions being enforced.coming with the hc bill it just was not included in the original filing If that injunction didn't exist, then it would be enforced until the SC ruled. The injunction was filed and granted. The reason such an injunction couldn't be continued in the Iowa case is that the highest possible court (the Iowa Supreme Court) ruled. There was no one else to appeal it to. Their word is final. An injunction has not been successfully filed against the health care law as far as I know. Wendy P. Wendy P."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,557 #140 February 2, 2011 The injunction is the difference. I don't know what you mean with your second inserted phrase. Can you please explain it? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #141 February 2, 2011 Page 75 of the ruling Quote(5) Injunction The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy [Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980) (Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added). There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary. So if the Obama admin is law abiding the law no longer is in force until decided by the SC"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #142 February 2, 2011 From the last page QuoteFor all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED. This bill/law is now null and void until overturned"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,557 #143 February 2, 2011 The motion for injunctive relief is denied. The court has ruled it invalid, but did not go so far as to say that the law is not to be followed until it is reviewed. The AZ law injunction was granted. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #144 February 2, 2011 QuoteWho is paying for people without insurance who go to the ER now? You've said in the past that you're all in favor of the little 5-year-old girl without insurance being treated. Wendy P. This is why I am against EMTALA. I know that puts me in a very, very small minority. I think health care is a good like every other. People who want it should either purchase it directly or indirectly (through insurance)."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #145 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteLet me ask you a question; if the Obama Health Plan lawsuit makes it to the Supreme Court and is declared unconstitutional, does that mean that it goes back to the Legislature, and is followed until they re-consider the legislation? Or does it mean that it's done for? Wendy P. You will not know what it means until they make their ruling. If, like this recent Judge in Florida, held that the ENTIRE bill was void because one section of it was ruled unconstitutional, then it would go back to square one. There aren't a lot of people that believe that's possible because there are simply too many other parts of the bill that are completely constitutional and the part about an individual mandate absolutely can be struck down separately. All of these contingencies have been thought about and mulled over, but the fact is, we won't know for certain until an actual ruling comes down. You're looking at that happening about a year from now at the very earliest. In the mean time, the current bill is still in effect. Did you get this part? from page 75 of the ruling QuoteIt is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction and then the last page QuoteFor all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED. Guess it is not a valid law anymore huh..... the SC will decide until then"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,557 #146 February 2, 2011 That's a consistent viewpoint. What would you do about the uninsured person who biffs a landing at the DZ and is screaming. Let's say the dz is not close to a metro area with a charity hospital. I'm not trying to trap; I'm really curious, because too often people want to have both EMTALA and a smug feeling that they're not paying for anyone else. It doesn't work that way. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #147 February 2, 2011 QuoteThe motion for injunctive relief is denied. The court has ruled it invalid, but did not go so far as to say that the law is not to be followed until it is reviewed. The AZ law injunction was granted. Wendy P. Come on Wendy QuoteIt is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction empisis mine"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #148 February 2, 2011 ***In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV -EMT Document 150 Filed 01/31/11 Page 77 of 78 Page 78 of 78 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #149 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteWho pays for her? That was my question. Wendy P. In the ER we do By the way No comment to the AZ imigration law comparison by anyone here Why do you suppose that is Because it doesn't "feel" good. It's a hard choice, and people are to squeamish to make a stand. It is too easy to be a hypocrite. It is really uncomfortable to them now"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #150 February 2, 2011 QuoteThat's a consistent viewpoint. What would you do about the uninsured person who biffs a landing at the DZ and is screaming. Let's say the dz is not close to a metro area with a charity hospital. I'm not trying to trap; I'm really curious, because too often people want to have both EMTALA and a smug feeling that they're not paying for anyone else. It doesn't work that way. Wendy P. In conservative dog eat dog America.. if the jumper aint paid up then its ok to stand there and watch him scream and bleed.. kinda like the firefighters who did not show up to the guys house that had not paid for their services. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
