Washington DC - Supreme Court Considers Legality of Obamacare

.

Coltons Point - People's Court Considers Insanity of Obamacare

The US Supreme Court is listening to an unprecedented 6 hours of debate over the  Constitutionality of Obama's health care program.  It is another face off of biblical proportions between David and Goliath with the all powerful US Attorney General representing President Obama and a group of State Attorney Generals representing state's rights and the people.

The classic confrontation between a strong central government versus a division of authority between states and the federal government.

Federalism versus decentralize government.

More loss of individual freedom versus the government's right to control you.

Boy did we ever need this Supreme Court action in the middle of a presidential election, as if we didn't have enough problems with the staggering economy, the confused foreign policy and the breakdown of morality in government, in most institutions, and in life.

So I say the Supreme Court should declare the whole thing unconstitutional on the grounds:

The name alone is just plain deceptive or stupid.  This is the legal name of Obamacare, the health care reform program, "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872)".

Does that say anything about improving medical services, lowering medical costs, eliminating fraud, corruption, conflicts of interests, bribes or kickbacks rampant in the health care industry?

Before we adopt some smorgasbord of medical regulations that will increase the already too high cost of medical care and health insurance don't we need answers to a few questions?

1. Should the government be doing this?

2. Why do we stay sick if we can get well?

3. Will it bring down the spiraling cost of medical care and prescription drugs?

4. Will it help strengthen the body and make it self-sustaining?

5. Will it make the best use of medical knowledge learned throughout time?

6. Does it give incentives to make people well rather than keep them sick?

7. Does it eliminate the conflicts, fraud, corruption and abuse in the industry?

None of this is really addressed in the Obamacare or any other health care program of the government, proposed by the government or even being considered by the government.

Therefore the judgment of the People's Court should be Rejection of the program on the grounds of Insanity, and rejection of the arguments both for and against Obamacare as neither is relevant to the desperate wellness, health care and anti-corruption needs of the people of America.

The Supreme Court would do well to adopt a similar ruling.

.

Memo to Internet Spammers and TV Advertisers - No More Prescription Addiction

.


Older Americans now take over 8 prescription drugs a day to sustain their lives. All health care reform is going to do it make it easier and cheaper to take more prescriptions. But after spending a lifetime taking vaccines, booster shots, antibiotics, and maintenance drugs, all which contributed to poor health and higher insurance premiums, what can we do? I say stop taking prescription drugs. The only reason you have to is because you spent your life doing what they told you to do.



It is time we said enough is enough and started getting well rather than getting treated. But before we make such a dramatic step forward in survival you need to take The I Don't Need Creed. It goes something like this.



The I Don't Need Creed!

I don't need drugs for depression because I'm not depressed.

I don't need drugs to relax because I'm already relaxed.



I don't need drugs to sleep because I don't feel like sleeping.

I don't need drugs to wake up because I didn't take drugs to sleep.



I don't need drugs to have sex because, well, it's none of your business.

I don't need drugs for sore legs because I earned the pain.

I don't need drugs for aching joints because I played hard as a kid.

I don't need drugs for cancer because I just might not have it.



I don't need drugs to eat because I'm not hungry.

I don't need drugs to run the marathon because it's a stupid thing to do.

I don't need drugs for being tired because I'm not tired.

I don't need drugs for plastic surgery because I like who I am.

I don't need drugs just because I'm eligible for AARP.



I don't need drugs to stop smoking because I stopped.

I don't need drugs for brittle bones because they aren't brittle.

I don't need drugs for my teeth and gums because they don't hurt.



I don't need drugs for wrinkles because I laughed enough to earn them.

I don't need drugs for soft or brittle nails because they look just fine.

I don't need drugs for smooth skin because smooth is not me.



I don't need drugs for gray hair because I should be getting gray.

I don't need drugs for being left handed because ass backward is okay by me.

I don't need drugs for nightmares because I might learn a lesson.



I don't need drugs for headaches for glasses because I can see just fine.

I don't need drugs for moles or warts because they don't bother me.

I don't need drugs to think better because I think just enough.

I don't need drugs to be happy because my eyes are open.



I don't need drugs for self esteem because I'm not ashamed of who I am.

I don't need drugs for doing stupid things because I might need them all the time.

I don't need drugs to eat better because I'm already big enough.

I don't need drugs to diet because I can stop eating junk.



I don't need drugs for a cold because I was out in the rain.

I don't need drugs to feel well because I want to keep feeling well.

I don't need drugs for thin blood because I already bleed too much.



I don't need drugs for a stroke because I don't have one.

I don't need drugs for mosquito bites because they are supposed to bite.

I don't need drugs for tick or flea bites because I don't walk in the woods.

I don't need drugs for clean water to drink because all the water is dirty.



I don't need drugs to stop heartburn because I don't have it yet.

I don't need drugs to stop headaches because I can turn off the TV.

I don't need drugs for Alzheimer's because I don't remember having it.

THE END

.

The Washington Post is Right for a Change

-



It is not often that I find a political article in the Washington Post that makes a lot of sense but today Post reporter Dana Milbank wrote about a White House Press Briefing that gave credit to legendary White House reporter Helen Thomas and her exchange with Robert Gibbs, Obama press secretary. Rather than tell you what she said here is the article.

The Washington Post

White House That Acts With All Deliberate Deliberation

By Dana Milbank
Friday, October 2, 2009

Helen Thomas is 89 years old and requires some assistance to get to and from the daily White House briefing. Yet her backbone has proved stronger than that of the president she covers.

On Thursday afternoon, Thomas gave a clinic in fortitude to President Obama's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, during the briefing. "Has the president given up on the public option?" she inquired from her front-row-middle seat.

The press secretary laughed at this repetition of a common Thomas inquiry, but this questioner, who has covered every president since Kennedy, wasn't about to be silenced. "I ask it day after day because it has great meaning in this country, and you never answer it," she said.

"Well, I -- I -- I apparently don't answer it to your satisfaction," Gibbs stammered.




"That's right," Thomas snarled.

"I -- I'll -- I'll give you the same answer that I gave you unsatisfactorily for many of those other days," Gibbs offered. "It's what the president believes in --"
"Is he going to fight for it or not?" Thomas snapped.

"We're going to work to get choice and competition into health-care reform" was Gibbs's vague response.

Thomas took that as a no. "You're not going to get it," she advised.
"Then why do you keep asking me?" Gibbs inquired.

"Because I want your conscience to bother you," Thomas replied. The room erupted; Gibbs reddened.

Actually, conscience isn't the problem for Gibbs and his boss; it's spine. Thomas's question got at an Obama administration trait that is puzzling opponents and demoralizing supporters: Why isn't the president more decisive and forceful? On many of the most pressing issues -- the public option in health reform, troop levels in Afghanistan, sanctions against Iran -- the administration has hewed to hemming and hawing.

The area in which Obama has been most forceful recently has been, of all things, his effort to win the Olympics for his home city of Chicago, which caused him to fly off Thursday evening on a quick lobbying trip to Copenhagen. The first lady announced that the Olympics campaign was a "take no prisoners" mission.

On Pennsylvania Avenue outside the White House on Thursday, environmental activists were demanding to know why Obama wouldn't, as they put it, "show the same foresight and commitment to our climate that he's showing to Chicago with this emergency trip to Copenhagen for the 2016 Olympics." They dressed up in green track suits, put on Obama masks, and carried a banner with the Olympic logo and the message "Obama: Climate Change Is Not a Game."

Gibbs had been scheduled to give his daily briefing at 1 p.m., then pushed it back to 1:15. At 1:27, the public-address system gave a "two-minute warning" for the briefing. Gibbs walked in 10 minutes later. The extra prep time was probably unnecessary, because the answers ranged from namby to pamby.

The topic of the day was the meeting with Iran near Geneva, and Reuters's Matt Spetalnick pointed out that the meeting "appears to have given Iran more breathing space, several more weeks at least."

"Today's meeting was a constructive beginning" was Gibbs's noncommittal comment.
CBS's Chip Reid tried anew to see whether the White House would give anything in the way of deadlines and timetables for Iran's compliance; he failed. "We've worked this methodically," Gibbs said.

And that was one of the bolder positions the White House spokesman took. Negotiating with Republicans on health care? "I'm not going to get ahead of the bill." The Fed refusing to release the names of banks that received government funds? "I'm not going to get into discussing an active legal case." Gasoline sanctions against Iran? I'm not going to get into the pluses and minuses." Predator missile strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan? "Not going to get into discussing that," Gibbs said with a wave.

Neither could the press secretary commit to allowing the top general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, to testify before Congress. Gibbs's reason: He had not "seen the comments" requesting the general's testimony.

Sometimes, of course, the refusal to take a position is a tactic to thwart opponents, or reporters. But the reluctance to be forceful has emboldened Obama's opponents -- a fact pointed out to Gibbs on Thursday by the Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Weisman.

Weisman noted that the right wing had already forced the resignation of environmental adviser Van Jones and arts official Yosi Sergant and was now alleging that Kevin Jennings, who runs the Education Department's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, had failed to report statutory rape in an incident 21 years ago when he was a teacher in Massachusetts. "Do you have anything substantive to say about what they are saying about this guy?" the reporter asked.

Gibbs did not. "I think the Department of Education had a statement on this," he said, allowing that "it's a shame" to watch conservative critics go after administration officials.

"Some in your camp would say that the White House has the power to stop it simply by no longer pushing these guys out of their positions," Weisman pointed out.
Gibbs's bold answer: The two officials "resigned on their own volition."
Can he say that with a clean conscience?

-

Biden Tells Real Intent of Obama Health Care Reform

-




Vice President Biden is no stranger to sticking his foot in his mouth or telling too much when asked a question. Yeserday, he may have finally revealed the real intent of the Obama health care reform in a speech everyone thought would get no notice because of the United Nations meeting.

In a discussion of the health care reforms needed, and after mauling the insurance industry which is required of every card carrying liberal, he made the following comments.




"You can't rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. We've got to change ships here!"

Is that liberal code for throwing out the system 70% of the people want to keep and replacing it with the government run public option program sought by the far left and socialist crowd? The goal has always been to eliminate all competition and eliminate private sector involvement in health care so the new system can be controlled by the unions and liberals.

At least he said what he meant this time. There was no effort by the White House to clarify what Biden meant, even when Obama's press secretary was asked directly if Biden was speaking for the president.