Posted by Tina
AP:
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court says states cannot require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.
The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona’s voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “Motor Voter” voter registration law.
So let me get this straight. Because civil rights groups are concerned that the law “…added an unconstitutional and burdensome layer of paperwork for tens of thousands of citizens” the opportunity for non-citizens to vote will be blown wide open?
How do we square that ruling with the pages of paperwork citizens must fill out to get federal assistance to afford Obamacare…or the hundreds of pages of paperwork it takes to acquire a loan for a new home due to the new Dodd/Frank banking regulations?
And for God’s sake what is wrong with the Supreme Court!
“Because civil rights groups are concerned that the law “…added an unconstitutional and burdensome layer of paperwork for tens of thousands of citizens” the opportunity for non-citizens to vote will be blown wide open?”
Well, yes. It’s a simple cost-benefit analysis. Since voter fraud is extraordinarily rare, the costs of imposing extra work on legal voters outweigh the purported benefits. Voter ID laws actually end up preventing more legal votersfrom voting than illegal voters.
But I am sure the party of fiscal responsibility and small government will continue to waste time and taxpayer money in order to solve problems that don’t exist, like voter fraud or Sharia law in America, while adding extra impositions on American citizens that will no doubt be ruled unconstitutional. Your party has voted to repeal Obamacare 37 times–think of the good they could have done if they spent that time and money doing something more constructive.
“How do we square that ruling with the pages of paperwork citizens must fill out to get federal assistance to afford Obamacare…or the hundreds of pages of paperwork it takes to acquire a loan for a new home due to the new Dodd/Frank banking regulations?”
Easily. Voting is a civil right that the Court takes very seriously. Any impositions on this right must serve a very pressing public need. Your side has not proven that this pressing need exists. Since federal assistance for healthcare and home loans have not been ruled as civil rights, the Court has no say in whether we should have to do mountains of paperwork in order to get those things.
But it’s funny that you think citizens should have to provide more information about themselves in order to vote than to buy guns.
Thomas Horne, a lawyer for Arizona, told the justices that the state was within its rights to ask for additional information beyond the simple federal form. And pointed out “It’s extremely inadequate “It’s essentially an honor system. It does not do the job.”
“Well,” answered Justice Sonia Sotomayor, “that’s what the federal system decided was enough.”
Patricia Millett, a lawyer for groups opposed to the law, countered: (and a weak argument at best) “Statements under oath in a criminal case are proof beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases that result in execution. It’s a very serious oath,” (sure, no one lies these days, Just ask Obama or Holder about the current events finding the light of day!)
To which Scalia said that federal law clearly empowers the states to take additional action to assess a potential voter’s eligibility.
He also stated to Millett: “Under oath is not proof at all It’s just a statement.”
If there is a possibility of hope for future honest elections with ONLY citizens of the USA voting, it is this statement: “The Supreme Court ruling pointed out that Arizona still has an option: It can ask the federal government to include state-specific instructions on the federal form, and go to court if the government says no”.
Harold, thanks for that info. on SC Justice Sotomayor. I’m nominating Sonia for recognition in the Distinguished Idiots Club, the list in the DIC’s working in high places is really growing.
Chris: “Voter ID laws actually end up preventing more legal votersfrom voting than illegal voters.:
An absurdity made by Democrat Party activists that community organize to make sure that persons claiming to be Mickey Mouse without a legitimate address and even Alzheimer patients vote (with a little help from those same paid volunteers). An abusurdity made by supporters of an administration that sicks the IRS on oppositions organizations to suppress conservative votes.
“But I am sure the party of fiscal responsibility and small government will continue to waste time and taxpayer money”
Another absurd statement by a supporter of a party whose leader has managed to raise our national debt to $16.75 trillion and whose governors have banckrupted cities all over America, not to mention several states…and whose choice as President has wasted money on green energy companies that fail or buy parts from China…a President who presides over the growth of poverty in America while taking expensive vacations and hanging out with big corporate sponsors and contributors.
“Your party has voted to repeal Obamacare 37 times–think of the good they could have done if they spent that time and money doing something more constructive.”
There is nothing at this juncture that would be more constructive than the repeal of Obamacare! This is a law that will force Americans to pay from 46% to 150% more for their insurance after beingf told we had to have this law to lower healthcare costs! A law that was supposed to mean more Americans would be covered…when in fact fewer will be covered! A law that would allow Americans to keep their doctors…turns out to be false! NEWSFLASH: Rasmussen reports “57% of Americans expect healthcare system to get worse in coming years” and Reason reports: “The majority want to return to a previous era. The poll found that 56 percent of U.S. voters say it would be ‘better’ if the U.S. went back to the health care system that was in place in 2009. Of course there’s a partisan divide: 85 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of conservatives, 30 percent of Democrats and 27 percent of liberals agree with that.”
“…the Court has no say in whether we should have to do mountains of paperwork in order to get those things.”
That doesn’t change the fact that this is an absurd argument, which was my point! Given the liberal/progressive’s love for mounds of paperwork under which Americans must exist and comply thanks to stupid laws and regulations it is particularly absurd.
Nothing funny about it, Chris, as citizens of a free country the people have an opportunity to move about and exchange money for a product without oppressive government intrusion. We also have laws to punish those who fail to behave legally and responsibly and use weapons inappropriately. Enforcement of the many laws already in place is sufficient. There is no such thing as a riskless society and useless laws that pretend they can produce such a society are ridiculous…you might even call them “funny” since they won’t change a thing…just look at Chicago that city of the strongest gun laws in the country!
Bunch of phonies!
Chris is a crowing agian, and son your bout as full of wind as a corn-eating horse
Tina: “An absurdity made by Democrat Party activists that community organize to make sure that persons claiming to be Mickey Mouse without a legitimate address and even Alzheimer patients vote (with a little help from those same paid volunteers). An abusurdity made by supporters of an administration that sicks the IRS on oppositions organizations to suppress conservative votes.”
You realize that none of this qualifies as an actual argument, yet alone a rational cost-benefit analysis, right? Mentioning a few bizarre anecdotes (without even linking to evidence that they’ve even occurred) doesn’t support the idea that voter fraud is common enough to justify placing more hurdles in front of legally eligible voters. Do you have evidence that contradicts the studies I’ve linked to showing that voter fraud is extremely rare in the U.S? Or would you prefer to continue your “throw a bunch of random accusations at the wall and see what sticks” approach?
There remains no evidence that the Obama administration “sicked” the IRS on conservatives, or had any involvement in the IRS’ inappropriate targeting of conservative groups.
“Another absurd statement by a supporter of a party whose leader has managed to raise our national debt to $16.75 trillion”
Are you incapable of evaluating Republicans without first comparing them to Democrats?
Besides, the specific policy I was referring to (Obamacare) DECREASES THE DEFICIT. Repealing the ACA would increase the deficit. This is a fact, and you know that, because we have been over it several times before.
“…and whose choice as President has wasted money on green energy companies that fail”
Contrary to the lies Mitt Romney told you, the vast majority of green energy companies that recieved stimulus funding have not failed:
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-clean-energy-whoppers/
“There is nothing at this juncture that would be more constructive than the repeal of Obamacare!”
Even if that were true, House Republicans have voted for repeal 37 times even though they’ve known nearly every time that the measure wouldn’t pass. Voting on something over and over that you know won’t pass, even if you believe it should, is not “constructive.” It’s a symbolic gesture, and a giant waste of everyone’s time and money.
“This is a law that will force Americans to pay from 46% to 150% more for their insurance after beingf told we had to have this law to lower healthcare costs!”
I know how much you wish this were true, but it’s not. The big news in California last month was about how unexpectedly low premiums were going to be now. Did you miss it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/23/california-obamacare-premiums-no-rate-shock-here/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/01/the-shocking-truth-about-obamacares-rate-shock/
“A law that was supposed to mean more Americans would be covered…when in fact fewer will be covered!”
That’s not even remotely true.
“NEWSFLASH: Rasmussen reports “57% of Americans expect healthcare system to get worse in coming years” and Reason reports: “The majority want to return to a previous era. The poll found that 56 percent of U.S. voters say it would be ‘better’ if the U.S. went back to the health care system that was in place in 2009. Of course there’s a partisan divide: 85 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of conservatives, 30 percent of Democrats and 27 percent of liberals agree with that.””
Yes, but when polled about specific portions of Obamacare, a majority of Americans say they approve. You know this already. The reason there is so much opposition toward Obamacare is because of all the LIES your side has told about it. Remember “death panels?” Or are you going to defend that absurdity again?
“That doesn’t change the fact that this is an absurd argument, which was my point!”
But you haven’t even *addressed* the argument. You’re too busy taking a bunch of vague, unrelated shots at the president, half of which aren’t even true. You’ve made no attempt to show that voter fraud is a significant enough problem to warrant making it harder for thousands of legally eligibile voters to vote. This raises the question of whether making it harder for some to vote is the true intention of those behind the push for voter ID.
During the debate over expanding background checks for gun owners, proponents put forward evidence showing that gun violence is a significant problem and that it could be curbed by stronger background checks. California is an example of a state with tough background checks and lower gun violence rates than neighboring states without such laws. I brought up Columbine, in which the gun show loophole allowed a straw buyer to purchase the majority of the shooter’s guns for them, and was unable to be prosecuted because what she did was not technically illegal. She said she wouldn’t have done this if she had to put her name to paper. We showed you data showing that gun shows are a haven for straw buyers, that a huge percentage of illegal guns originate at gun shows, and that even terrorists have advocated using gun shows to illegally obtain weapons.
In other words, we showed evidence that a significant problem existed, and that our proposed solution could do something about it.
Proponents of voter ID laws have made no such effort.
“Enforcement of the many laws already in place is sufficient.”
As I have shown you before, congressional Republicans acting on behalf of NRA lobbyists have actively worked to weaken enforcement of existing gun laws:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/07/nra-interferes-with-atf-operations/1894355/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/01/never-mind-new-guns-laws-the-nra-keeps-weakening-the-existing-ones.html
Chris: “…to justify placing more hurdles in front of legally eligible voters.”
Are you kidding me…lefties LOVE hurdles. Just ask any businessman. Just ask the doctors and healthcare providers that must now comply with thousands of new rules and mounds of paperwork and data entry!
As for identification to vote the hurdle is quite small and is required in many other instances. If a non-American wants a job in this country he is required to show his potential employer 3 forms of ID. Americans must show ID to get on a plane, sign papers, enroll our children in school, open a bank account, purchase a new car, cash a check or pay by credit card. People are asked to show an ID to enter a bar or buy booze or cigarettes. Some prescriptions require showing ID. If having an ID is such a big hurdle maybe it’s time to begin dismantling all of the laws and regulations that force US citizens to have and show ID.
The point is to place hurdles in front of anyone that would vote illegally…and you know that Chris.
But thanks again for commenting.
UPDATE: Sen Ted Cruz will introduce an amendment to address voter ID following the Supreme Court ruling today:
Once more our Liberal friend is off subject of ‘immigration’. Chris throws more water in the soup in a attempt to make the GOP look uninformed as he comments: The reason there is so much opposition toward Obamacare is because of all the LIES your side (GOP) has told about it. Remember “death panels?” Or are you going to defend that absurdity again?
No need to defend the title called “Death Panel”, As with most hurried legislation put forth by the Obama era this issue (Obamacare) has started to reveal its short comings already. While HHS director Sebelius, ponders how best to deal with life giving procedures, and most likely how Government intervention is going to be perceived. The news reports that Sebelius can certainly order a policy review, as she did in a May 31,2013 letter to the procurement network, However her authority to intervene in a specific case is unclear. As noted by NYU bio ethicist Art Caplan, do to the complexity of Transplant rules, (under contract with HHS Approved policies are subject to the secretary’s discretion of enforcement, (Isn’t that by any other name, a Government employee making life or death decision) and acknowledging they are somewhat archaic rules Sebilius “doesn’t have all the information.”
(Yet Sebilius is charged with the decision) well any time politics become a precursor to life, life is going to lose, if only measured by time permitted. I also have wondered who on the transplant list may have passed while this Governmental scenario played out, or did anyone lose their life while a PANEL of Government employees decided how to administer life or DEATH!?
Love Ted Cruz. The guy is one smart dude to figure out how to do an end-run on the supreme court and kill the immigration bill at the same time if border security isn’t step one of the bill.
Yep peggy, the more I hear from ol Ted the more I like him. He’s pretty squared away.
FYI: From the Foundary
Morning Bell: 3 Things You Should Know About the Supreme Court and Voter ID:
Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down one of its first major decisions of this term, striking down Arizona’s measure requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. Media reports are already off base in interpreting this decision, says Heritage legal expert Hans von Spakovsky. Here are three things to know about the decision.
1. This is not a voter ID decision.
This decision has to do with voter registration, not the act of voting. Von Spakovsky explains:
In 2004, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved a referendum that had two major components: voter ID for in-person voting and a requirement that anyone registering to vote provide proof of citizenship. The voter ID provision was not before the Supreme Court and is alive and well in Arizona. (emphasis added)
Although it did not strike down the provision that requires a photo ID for in-person voting, von Spakovsky said “the Supreme Court came down on the wrong side of election integrity” with this ruling.
2. Federal law already mandates that a person must be a U.S. citizen to vote.
The Court’s ruling does not mean that requiring proof of citizenship is bad or wrong. In fact, people are supposed to vote only if they are citizens.
The Court ruled the way it did because there is already a federal law requiring people to affirm that they are U.S. citizens when they register to vote. Most people register using the federal mail-in form under the “Motor Voter” law. The majority of the justices said that federal requirement “preempts” Arizona’s requirement, which simply means the federal law comes first.
But Arizona residents can register to vote using the federal form or a state form. Von Spakovsky notes that “Arizona can continue to require proof of citizenship for anyone who registers using the state form.”
3. States do determine the qualifications of their voters.
If Arizona has information about a voter that shows he or she is not eligible to vote, then the state still decides who is a legitimate voter.
Von Spakovsky says:
The Court specifically noted that under our Constitution, states have the exclusive right to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, and Arizona can deny registration to anyone who submits a federal form if it has other information in its possession that establishes the ineligibility of the applicant.
Making sure that only U.S. citizens are voting is vital to the integrity of American elections. This Supreme Court decision basically kept the status quo, and meanwhile, voting reforms are needed.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/18/morning-bell-3-things-you-should-know-about-the-supreme-court-and-voter-id/
Chris: “Remember “death panels?” Or are you going to defend that absurdity again?”
You bet I will defend it again!
Just last week the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, reluctantly refused to consider the case of a ten year old girl who needed a lung transplant. Federal regulation disallowed her from being placed on the adult waiting list even though her doctor said she was physically capable to use an adult lung and even though she was a good candidate for survival. Under current law Sebelius, a Washington DC bureaucrat would decide the fate of this little girl because of the bureaucracy and the regulation putting her in charge of the decision making rather than leaving the decision to her doctor and parents! The family took the case to court and thankfully won, the judge ruling that the little girl could be placed on the adult waiting list. She was moved to the top of the list due to the grave need for immediate surgery and she is ALIVE today because a judge saw the idiocy of putting a bureaucrat in charge of such decisions.
I shudder to think what would have happened if the case had been delayed or the judge had been one of those radical leftist who believe people are the earths biggest problem and should be eliminated whenever possible.
Yes Chris, this is an example of a death panel decision, instituted under Obamacare, where instead of being treated according to need under a doctors care a bureaucrat will make life or death decisions.
Supporting quotes: “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing….This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run. — Economist editorial
“Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.” — Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!
“I would suggest, sir, that, again, this is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies,” Kathleen Sebelius.
Regarding Obamacare and debt and deficit spending:
Only a lying Democrat would boldly, and stupidly, assert that it’s possible to increase the bureaucracy, increase the number of people covered, decrease competition, AND at the same time decrease costs. This piece of garbage will be very very expensive both to individuals who see their insurance and co-pays go up and to government where debt will pile up even as the politicians scream for higher taxes to pay for it.
Peggy that’s very good information…and I agree about Cruz.
Tina: “Under current law Sebelius, a Washington DC bureaucrat would decide the fate of this little girl because of the bureaucracy and the regulation putting her in charge of the decision”
You have this completely backwards. Sebelius’ argument was that she was NOT in charge of this decision. She believed that to decide in this case would overstep her authority, and left it up to the doctors and medical experts who are responsible for the regulations regarding lung transplants. She did order a review of the transplant policies, but did not think it was appropriate for her to intervene in an individual patient’s case.
It was Republicans who argued that Sebelius should intervene and make an exception to the regulations which have been in place since 2005. In other words, it was Republicans who argued that, in this case, a single government bureaucrat should decide an individual patient’s treatment, and it was the leftist bureacrat who said that she did not have that authority. Take a moment to note the irony.
“Yes Chris, this is an example of a death panel decision, instituted under Obamacare, where instead of being treated according to need under a doctors care a bureaucrat will make life or death decisions.”
And now you’re just lying. This case has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Again, these rules have been in place since 2005.
There is absolutely nothing in Obamacare that deals with issues of who can get what lungs, or anything similar, because the law does not regulate medical CARE. The law regulates medical COVERAGE–what will be payed for. There is no panel or beuracrat that decides whether or not a person is eligible for a certain operation, drug, procedure, or treatment, only whether those things will be paid for and by whom. Death panels do not exist, and neither does Bigfoot.
If you still believe that this case shows that “death panels” exist, then you have to at least acknowledge that they existed in this country long before Obamacare. But these rules were crafted by doctors and medical experts, and they were enacted into law for a reason. Now of course, there are always exceptions. You could argue that the regulations need to be changed–and Sebelius did ordered that they be re-examined, so maybe that will happen. Or maybe you believe all medical regulations should be scrapped, and everything should be handled on a case-by-case basis. But again: this has nothing to do with Obamacare. The law has nothing to do with what kind of medical care is allowed. It has everything to do with how medical care is PAID FOR.
I am glad that little girl got her lung transplant. I truly hope that her doctor is right and that there are no complications caused by her getting an adult lung. But it’s despicable the way you and certain other conservatives have tried to politicize this and make it about Obamacare, when it has absolutely nothing to do with that at all.
If ID is already required for in-person voting in Arizona, then what is the point of requiring proof of citizenship during voter registration? So that you can be double-super-sure that no non-citizens are voting, even though that almost never happens anyway?
It should be noted that the majority opinion in this case was written by Scalia, one of the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Even he didn’t buy the argument that this move was necessary or constitutional.
The move to require people to prove citizenship before they register to vote is redundant in a state that already has voter ID laws. It does not solve any pressing problem, and only serves to make it harder for eligible citizens to register to vote. The law seems designed to disenfranchise minority voters, who are less likely to have acceptable ID, and tend to vote Democrat. It is entirely political.
Chris: “Sebelius’ argument was that she was NOT in charge of this decision….”
Chris, Sebelius was asked by the Congressman because under Obamacare, “the secretary shall” is mentioned countless times. Its understandable that the people look to her for a decision.
Marc Siegel wrote in National Review:
If the doctor and transplant organization could have made the decision without the Secretary’s input the question would never have been asked of her!
“Take a moment to note the irony.”
There is no irony. Obamacare is the law of the land and we must all now live under it!
“Again, these rules have been in place since 2005.”
And under Obamacare the Secretary has the authority to change the regulation…she declined to make the change.
One of the problems is that the IPAB panel has not been seated even though it was ordered to be in place by May 1st:
She’s the one person (her office) that is given ultimate authority over such decisions and everyone will look to her to supply the answers when questions arise.
It’s getting late and I’m tired…bottom line…how medical care is “paid for” will determine the quality and limits of medical care and if you don’t think that’s true just wait awhile.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Oh…and your assessment of Scalia’s opinion overstates his position…more tomorrow.
Tina: “Chris, Sebelius was asked by the Congressman because under Obamacare, “the secretary shall” is mentioned countless times.”
Totally irrelevant, unless you can show that Obamacare gives her the power to directly overturn the regulations set by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Clearly there was disagreement over whether Sebelius had that power:
“While Sebelius can certainly order a policy review, as she did in a May 31 letter to the procurement network, her authority to intervene in a specific case is unclear.
Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) told Sebelius that “[i]t simply takes your signature” to help this child.
[NYU bioethicist Art] Caplan said: “It isn’t clear no matter how many congressmen yell at Secretary Sebelius that she has the ability to do anything.”
Setting transplant policy is complicated. OPTN has expert committees that draft proposals and submit them for public comment. Approved policies are subject to the secretary’s discretion of enforcement or reconsideration, according to a summary of the regulations by OPTN.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/kathleen-sebelius-childs-lung-transplant-92237.html#ixzz2WgJajOYS
Tina: “And under Obamacare the Secretary has the authority to change the regulation…”
You have presented zero evidence that this is true. No source for this story that I have read, including the Blaze article you linked to, mentions anything about Obamacare. Again, it has nothing to do with this case; you are trying to draw a connection where none exists so that you can baselessly attack the law with speculation and innuendo, as has been your method since the law was just a bill. You will reach for anything, no matter how tenuous the connection, to smear this law. If the law were as bad as you said it was, you wouldn’t have to stretch so far to make it look bad.
Marc Siegel’s argument is incoherent. He writes:
“Without a doctor ever seeing you or knowing your story, you may get handed a life-and-death decision, with little chance for appeal. We saw a foreshadowing of this brave new world last week when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius refused to approve the waiver that would have put a dying child on the adult-lung transplant list.”
He’s simply lying about the “without a doctor ever seeing you” part–this little girl had been seen by her doctor for quite a while. But let’s look at what’s happening here: Republicans are asking Sebelius to use a power she doesn’t believe she has in order to overturn regulations that have been set by *actual doctors.* They are asking a government bureaucrat to intervene in a situation that she says she should stay out of. In this case, it is Republicans who were asking the government to intervene in a child’s healthcare. Yes, her doctors said that she was eligible for the lung–but these regulations were set by doctors too, and there is disagreement in the medical community about this issue. Sebelius did what she believed to be appropriate and ordered a review of the policy, but she felt it would be wrong for her to intervene in an individual patients’ case and go against the wisdom of the majority of the medical community.
In other words, she did the *exact opposite* of what Republicans have accused her of doing under Obamacare. Instead of intervening in an individual patients’ case, she chose not to intervene, and left the decision up to regulations that were set by doctors and have existed since the Bush administration. She did not use any new powers she was given under Obamacare.
OF COURSE you don’t see any irony in this situation. You are irony-deficient. You only see what you want to see.
Oh for heavens sake. She didn’t “refuse to intervene” she ducked her responsibility!
Mind…I can’t blame her. The Democrats have wrotten the worst piece of legislation to ever come down the pike. This case is a precursor to the types of confusing disputes that will emerge. We are already experiencing a mess because of the things that are supposed to be in place but aren’t…one of which is the IPAB. This law should be scrapped…it’s confusing (obviously)…it’s expensive…it will cost a lot of Americans their jobs and damage small business. It is the most irresponsible grab for power…
Well, lets face it, this administration’s entire purpose has been an irresponsible grab for power!
Tina: “Oh for heavens sake. She didn’t “refuse to intervene” she ducked her responsibility!”
Make up your mind. Do you want Sebelius to be able to make determinations about who gets what treatments, or don’t you?
Sebelius determined that she was not in a position to do so, and left it up to the body that has been making such determinations since the Bush administration. These regs were made by doctors and medical experts, not Democratic politicians or bureaucrats. She did use her power to make sure the regs were looked at and updated if need be. But she wasn’t going to play God with this girl’s life, or the lives of others on the transplant waiting list.
You have still offered no evidence that Sebelius would have legally been able to make this decision.
You’re just being a desparate hypocrite, clinging to whatever you can in order to smear your political opponents. The only reason you even know or care about this girl’s situation is because you thought you could use her case for political advantage, and you are more than willing to lie in order to do so. (Note that you still have not backed up your earlier assertion that Obamacare gave Sebelius the authority to decide this case, because you can’t back that up. You literally just made that up because it suited you.)
“This case is a precursor to the types of confusing disputes that will emerge.”
Again, you have to actually provide evidence for the things you say–simply asserting them doesn’t cut it. Be specific. What additional powers does Obamacare grant the secretary that would put her in a position to decide cases such as this girl’s?
Chris: “Make up your mind. Do you want Sebelius to be able to make determinations about who gets what treatments, or don’t you?”
Common Chris…this is the plan you endorse and promote. The question is, now that you do have it, do you expect the Secretary to do her duty under the plan or not?
This isn’t a question of what I want; it’s a question of what we are all stuck with! At best its a lot of confusion or the subject would not have reached this level.
There is some evidence that the law is not only confusing but arbitrary…with decision making left to the Secretary. Not only did we have to pass it to see what was in it, it is written so badly that we will have to wait years to see how it’s implemented!
Geez progressives don’t know HOW to be responsible…they sure know how to pass the buck.
Here are a few excerpts from articles that indicate the law is confusing and gives the Secretary undefined powers:
The Secretary Shall – Hudson Institute
The American Spectator:
There are more than 2,500 references to the secretary of HHS in the health care law (in most cases she’s simply mentioned as “the Secretary”). A further breakdown finds that there are more than 700 instances in which the Secretary is instructed that she “shall” do something, and more than 200 cases in which she “may” take some form of regulatory action if she chooses. On 139 occasions, the law mentions decisions that the “Secretary determines.” At times, the frequency of these mentions reaches comic heights. For instance, one section of the law reads: “Each person to whom the Secretary provided information under subsection (d) shall report to the Secretary in such manner as the Secretary determines appropriate.”
The powers given to Sebelius are wide ranging. In the coming years, if she remains in office, the former Kansas governor will be able to determine what type of insurance coverage every American is required to have. She can influence what hospitals can participate in certain plans, can set up health insurance exchanges within states against their will, and even regulate McDonald’s Happy Meals.
She’ll run pilot programs that Democrats have set up in an effort to control costs, and be in a position to dole out billions of dollars in grant money.
But the full breadth of her powers will be known only over time, due to the ambiguity of the language in many parts of the health care legislation. As conservatives make the case for repealing ObamaCare over the course of the next several years, it will be imperative to highlight the arbitrary new powers given to an unelected bureaucrat. …
…The legislation is so expansive that even thousands of pages of legislative text were insufficient to spell out how huge chunks of the new program will operate in reality. One Republican health care staffer in the Senate complained that those who drafted the health care bill were so “incompetent and out of their depth” that whenever they couldn’t grasp how an idea would translate into reality, they simply left it to the secretary of HHS to work out. …
…The most worrisome aspect of the new powers granted to Sebelius, and whichever HHS secretary may follow her, is that the full extent of her powers remain unknown even to experts at interpreting legislative language. A recent analysis by the Congressional Research Service struggled in several cases to interpret the powers given to her by certain sections of the law. …
…Either the new powers and responsibilities given to the Secretary are too complicated for even HHS to figure out, or they’re so arbitrary that Sebelius can pick and choose how she’ll comply with parts of the law.
Today there is a second case that the same judge ruled should be placed on the adult list:
Washington Times:
At this rate our courts are certainly going to be busy. More unnecessary costs for the US taxpayer.
As many are now saying this law is a train wreck!
“Common Chris…this is the plan you endorse and promote. The question is, now that you do have it, do you expect the Secretary to do her duty under the plan or not?”
Tina,
What the hell are you talking about?
I have now asked you several times to show me where in the Affordable Care Act Sebelius is granted the power to directly intervene in situations like this. You have not done so. Again, none of the articles I have read, including the ones you’ve linked to, say that Sebelius’ ability to intervene in this case is in any way dependent on the new healthcare law. You appear to be the only person making that claim.
Please back it up in your next comment.
I’m not making that claim.
I’m noticing that Congress felt the need to ask!
You cannot deny that this happened. You cannot deny that Sebelius was the one office holder, whose authority is cited over and over in the law and often in arbitrary language, that Congress looked to for an authority who could waive the healthcare regulatation. Obviously the impression is that she has that responsibility.
The judge’s ruling:
Obviously the judge thought she had the authority to waive the federal regulation. the fact that the regulation has been in place since 2005 is irrelevant. She is the person who has the authority to waive the rule or the judge wouldn’t have ordered it…and the little girl had the operation and received an adult lung so Sebelius must have complied with the judges order.
But there is a larger point here and that is that this unsustainable law will create greater and greater need to save money. Instead of our lives being in the hands of God or fate bureaucrats in Washington will control outcomes by controlling the purse.
And we are, once again, done.
Tina: “I’m not making that claim.”
Yes, you are. Here are your own words:
“Common Chris…this is the plan you endorse and promote. The question is, now that you do have it, do you expect the Secretary to do her duty under the plan or not?”
Please do not deny what is right there in black and white. You have repeatedly tried to connect this case to Obamacare, even though no such connection exists. Why can’t you just admit that and say you were wrong, instead of denying you ever said it? It’s right there for everyone to see.
“But there is a larger point here and that is that this unsustainable law will create greater and greater need to save money. Instead of our lives being in the hands of God or fate bureaucrats in Washington will control outcomes by controlling the purse.”
But as this case shows, bureaucrats in Washington already do play a role in medical regulations,. Again, this had nothing to do with Obamacare–the regulations have existed for years, and Sebelius’ power to change them has not been strengthened by Obamacare. So if you believe this is an example of a “death panel,” you at least have to concede that it’s one that *already existed* before Obamacare. Bureaucrats have been making medical decisions for quite a while in this country, in both government and the private sector.
You have failed to make your case.
Chris you just admitted that death panels exist and that a death panel exists in Obamacare.
The court ordered Sebelius to waive the rule. He didn’t order anyone else to waive the rule.
She didn’t want to make the decision…in fact her response included the words, “…some people live some people die”. unaccountability runs rampant in this administration…as does secrecy!
But the Secretary and the IPAB (death panel) board will be making decisions and they will make them based solely on MONEY, cash, filthy lucre…so she had better get used to these appeals ’cause they will be coming her way.
The law is a piece of trash. Ask any group of lawyers and you will get as many opinions about it.
You are right that the government already makes these decisions. The big mistake was passing the medicare law in 1965 in the first place. Government has no business being in the healthcare business! It’s one of the reasons healthcare is so da*ned expensive for all of us and insurance is through the roof for all of us….and going higher.
And this case was an example of a death panel decision…the court, the congress, the family all looked to the one person who overseas the death panel which now overseas medical decisions.
I have never said panels that make these decisions never existed before. They have never before existed, as they do in Obamacare, under a single bureaucrat being given such extreme power atop an unaccountable board! Obamacare created that.
You have failed to make your case.
And wasn’t it you who said there was no “death panel” in Obamacare? And wasn’t it you talkin trash about Sarah Palin because of it before this law was passed?
Now all of a sudden you’re admitting there is a death panel in Obamacare and casually claim it doesn’t matter because there have always been death panels!
The American people are making the case quite nicely. Not only was this piece of crap passed unethically with bribes and collusion behind closed doors, it was passed with corporate deal making and now we discover that our tax dollars will go to democrat activists to register voters while they “teach people” how to apply for Obamacare in California!
Tina: “Chris you just admitted that death panels exist and that a death panel exists in Obamacare.”
No. Please learn how to read.
Here is what I said:
“So if you believe this is an example of a “death panel,” you at least have to concede that it’s one that *already existed* before Obamacare.”
I did not say that I believe “death panel” is an appropriate term to apply to the organization that crafts medical regulations regarding lung transplants, because that would be f***ing crazy. I said that, *by your logic*, this would amount to a death panel, and one that existed before Obamacare was passed. I never said that your logic made any goddamned sense, because it doesn’t.
Now I see that you do believe this organization is a death panel, and that you also death panels have existed since long before Obamacare. That’s still f***ing crazy, but at least it’s more consistent than I gave you credit for.
“She didn’t want to make the decision…”
Yes, exactly. And you did want her to. You wanted a single bureaucrat to make this decision instead of a group of doctors and medical experts. At the same time, you are complaining that a single bureacrat gets to make decisions instead of doctors and medical experts. You are a gigantic hypocrite, and you are pathologically incapable of detecting your own contradictions, no matter how huge and glaringly obvious they are.
“The big mistake was passing the medicare law in 1965 in the first place.”
Bahahahahahaha
“But the Secretary and the IPAB (death panel) board”
For the last time: The IPAB is not a death panel. Only a liar or an idiot with no sense of shame would call it that. Have some damn self-respect.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sarah-palin-death-panels-and-obamacare/2012/06/27/gJQAysUP7V_blog.html
http://factcheck.org/tag/death-panel/
http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2018578563_deathpanels02.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-5233968.html
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20120926/ELECTIONS01/309260028/death-panel-obamacare-fact-check