1 1
billeisele

Supreme court nomination

Recommended Posts

(edited)
19 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Why am I not surprised that in your house Wheel of Fortune takes precedence over news?

I had been watching news all day and Fridays are pizza and TV/movie night, (7 and11 year old kids aren’t big on Rachael Maddox) watching Return of the Jedi now.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I had been watching news all day and Fridays are pizza and TV/movie night, (7 and1 year old kids aren’t big on Rachael Maddox) watching Return of the Jedi now.

Fair enough. You're excused from duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
4 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Amy Coney Barrett 

Barrett has been critical of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 abortion decision

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/09/24/ruth-bader-ginsburg-abortion-roe-v-wade-catholic
 

replace one women who has been critical of RVW with another woman who has been critical of RVW

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/09/24/ruth-bader-ginsburg-abortion-roe-v-wade-catholic
 

replace one women who has been critical of RVW with another woman who has been critical of RVW

Hi Brent,

Not the same thing at all.  That would be equivalent to saying that they are both female.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Isn’t that EXACTLY what Obama did to the Republicans over the ACA?  “Elections have consequences...in case you haven’t noticed, I won, get over it”

No, quite the opposite.  The Dems had the majority of both houses of Congress when Obama was elected.  He naively tried to reach out to the Republicans, who had already stated (McConnell) that their only priority would be not to pass anything promoted by the administration.  The ACA should have been rammed through in the first year, without making 200 modifications to appease the R's.  It would have been a better program, and you would have been able to keep your doctor (if you liked, and she didn't retire or go concierge).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, headoverheels said:

No, quite the opposite.  The Dems had the majority of both houses of Congress when Obama was elected.  He naively tried to reach out to the Republicans, who had already stated (McConnell) that their only priority would be not to pass anything promoted by the administration.  The ACA should have been rammed through in the first year, without making 200 modifications to appease the R's.  It would have been a better program, and you would have been able to keep your doctor (if you liked, and she didn't retire or go concierge).

You know that arguing with facts doesn't work with certain folks, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Those are not facts.

What aren't facts?

That Obama had a majority in both houses? Fact.

That he reached out to the Republicans on Obamacare? Well, in July he invited 4 Republicans to meet with him on Obamacare. Delaware Rep. Mike Castle said on May 18 2009 that they were making an honest effort to deal with Republicans. 3/4 of the 788 amendments proposed were Republican (albeit the vast majority were technical), and 161 of those were passed. That's a 5-minute effort.

That McConnell said that their whole job was to make sure that Obama didn't pass anything? Well, he did say that the single most important thing he could do was to make Obama a one-term president. And it's quite verifiable that judicial nominations were blocked.

Obamacare rammed through? Yeah, it could have been. 200 amendments? Well, 161, and, yes, mostly (but not all) technical.

Regardless, all medical insurance has gone up regularly for the last 25 years. I know what I paid in the 1990's, and it didn't resemble much what I paid in 2011 when I retired. As far as keeping your doctor -- well, the comment about the doctor going concierge is valid. Mine (whom I really liked) did, and that was the last straw along with his complete inability to stay on schedule. So I didn't keep mine, but it had nothing to do with ACA (the rest of his group kept right on practicing). Did you hope that ACA would make it illegal for doctors to change how they practice, move, or retire?

A substantive answer to Wolfriverjoe's post would have been useful. I know your insurance was hurt by ACA, so was my son's (significantly). Do you really think that a net increase in the number of people insured was a bad thing, even at the cost of your plan?

Wendy P.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

What aren't facts?

That Obama had a majority in both houses? Fact.

That he reached out to the Republicans on Obamacare? Well, in July he invited 4 Republicans to meet with him on Obamacare. Delaware Rep. Mike Castle said on May 18 2009 that they were making an honest effort to deal with Republicans. 3/4 of the 788 amendments proposed were Republican (albeit the vast majority were technical), and 161 of those were passed. That's a 5-minute effort.

That McConnell said that their whole job was to make sure that Obama didn't pass anything? Well, he did say that the single most important thing he could do was to make Obama a one-term president. And it's quite verifiable that judicial nominations were blocked.

Obamacare rammed through? Yeah, it could have been. 200 amendments? Well, 161, and, yes, mostly (but not all) technical.

Regardless, all medical insurance has gone up regularly for the last 25 years. I know what I paid in the 1990's, and it didn't resemble much what I paid in 2011 when I retired. As far as keeping your doctor -- well, the comment about the doctor going concierge is valid. Mine (whom I really liked) did, and that was the last straw along with his complete inability to stay on schedule. So I didn't keep mine, but it had nothing to do with ACA (the rest of his group kept right on practicing). Did you hope that ACA would make it illegal for doctors to change how they practice, move, or retire?

A substantive answer to Wolfriverjoe's post would have been useful. I know your insurance was hurt by ACA, so was my son's (significantly). Do you really think that a net increase in the number of people insured was a bad thing, even at the cost of your plan?

Wendy P.

 

Hi Wendy,

It's the 'all about me' people.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

What aren't facts?

That a doctor or a plan could have been kept.

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

That Obama had a majority in both houses? Fact.

Not under dispute.

Elections have consequences.  This is being discussed currently in other threads.

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

That he reached out to the Republicans on Obamacare? Well, in July he invited 4 Republicans to meet with him on Obamacare. Delaware Rep. Mike Castle said on May 18 2009 that they were making an honest effort to deal with Republicans. 3/4 of the 788 amendments proposed were Republican (albeit the vast majority were technical), and 161 of those were passed. That's a 5-minute effort.

That happened because he didn't want to completely alienate any chance of reelection for his supporters in the house and senate.

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

That McConnell said that their whole job was to make sure that Obama didn't pass anything? Well, he did say that the single most important thing he could do was to make Obama a one-term president. And it's quite verifiable that judicial nominations were blocked.

Not under question.

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Obamacare rammed through? Yeah, it could have been. 200 amendments? Well, 161, and, yes, mostly (but not all) technical.

Regardless, all medical insurance has gone up regularly for the last 25 years. I know what I paid in the 1990's, and it didn't resemble much what I paid in 2011 when I retired. As far as keeping your doctor -- well, the comment about the doctor going concierge is valid. Mine (whom I really liked) did, and that was the last straw along with his complete inability to stay on schedule. So I didn't keep mine, but it had nothing to do with ACA (the rest of his group kept right on practicing). Did you hope that ACA would make it illegal for doctors to change how they practice, move, or retire?

Gone up - yes.  Absolutely.  

Gone up 5-7/mo for the last 7 years that I purchased the insurance.

Then - My 3K deductible for the mandated similar plan went to 12K.

My premiums went from 237/mo to over 500.

I was in a network. BCBS. I went to a physicians group, and had relationships with all the doctors in the group.

Staying with them was not affordable any more, and I was forced to drop almost all insurance.

 

 

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

A substantive answer to Wolfriverjoe's post would have been useful. I know your insurance was hurt by ACA, so was my son's (significantly). Do you really think that a net increase in the number of people insured was a bad thing, even at the cost of your plan?

Wendy P.

 

Yes, and no.

Insurance guaranteed to people that don't use it, but still cost others money is wasteful, and unnecessary.

I know for a fact that I didn't need over a 3rd of what I was being charged for?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Insurance guaranteed to people that don't use it, but still cost others money is wasteful, and unnecessary.

I know for a fact that I didn't need over a 3rd of what I was being charged for?

 

Don’t be so sure, that hysterectomy coverage might come in handy some day, and don’t forget your free birth control pills.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Do you really think that a net increase in the number of people insured was a bad thing, even at the cost of your plan?

Wendy P.

 

The coverage is useless if one can’t afford the deductible and we still have 50 million + without coverage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

The coverage is useless if one can’t afford the deductible and we still have 50 million + without coverage.

So a 20 million improvement is worse, because every single person is not covered. And a high deductible is worse than no coverage, because one might actually be able to pay that high deductible (with sacrifice, which we are loath to make as a rule), where people just say fuckit and give up (or assign to the county) at the cost of uninsured stuff. Gotcha

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

So a 20 million improvement is worse, because every single person is not covered. And a high deductible is worse than no coverage, because one might actually be able to pay that high deductible (with sacrifice, which we are loath to make as a rule), where people just say fuckit and give up (or assign to the county) at the cost of uninsured stuff. Gotcha

Wendy P.

How many of the people that it was supposed to cover, did it actually benefit?

How many did it fuck out of their coverage?

Do you believe that the number is lower or higher than the 32M it was "Supposed" to help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

How many of the people that it was supposed to cover, did it actually benefit?

How many did it fuck out of their coverage?

Do you believe that the number is lower or higher than the 32M it was "Supposed" to help?

Why don't you do your own research and tell us instead of making a thinly veiled, evidence free  statement in the form of a question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is anything about her to fight over on a personal level.  She seems to be qualified academically.  She has religious beliefs and associated lifestyle decisions that will seem extreme to many, but I think those are her choices to make for herself.

My issue is that she seems willing to impose those beliefs and choices on others, at least indirectly.  Yesterday I saw an interview with two legal scholars, one pretty conservative and the other liberal.  They were asked where she fit in with the current slate of 8 justices.  They both agreed that she does not "fit in", she would actually be significantly to the right of Justice Thomas, who everyone agrees is currently the most conservative justice by some distance.  She clerked for Justice Scalia, who once said of himself "I am an originalist, but not a nut", and who on rare occasions could be convinced to see things from a "liberal" point of view (for example, considering flag burning as political speech).  People who are familiar with Amy Barrett say that no-one should expect any agreement with the liberal wing of the court, ever. 

She will, of course, be polite and even charming as she guts voting rights, LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, the ability of the government to protect citizens against pollution and disease, etc.  She "praised" Ginsberg for "breaking glass ceilings", but recall that Scalia disagreed with Ginsberg on every important civil rights case, and Barrett is apparently more right wing that Scalia.

Of course she cannot do those things completely on her own.  She will need other justices to agree.  The problem is, with this nominee, the court is the most conservative it has been since the 1930s, when the court was focused on undoing as much as it could of the New Deal legislation.  I think we will have a big problem when the court is running almost a century behind much of the rest of the country.  MAGA notwithstanding, America was not so great for a lot of people in the 1930s/1940/1950s.  If the court strips millions of people of their health insurance, their ability to make decisions for themselves about reproduction, their ability to vote, breath clean air, etc it will, I think, destroy the public's confidence in the judicial system.  I think a more balanced court, where no one side is able to impose it's will on the other in every case, is more in the best interest of the country.

Don

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1