published Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

Doctor's Orders

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

74
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
News_Junkie said...

There is a small cadre of attorneys who intimately follow all of the Supreme Court rulings. They not only read all of the current cases, but also the prior ones on which the current Justices have ruled. Most importantly, they are intimately familiar with the way that the Justices vote on certain issues, focusing on the various blocs among the Justices. Although the vote is often five to four on politically sensitive issues, that paradigm does not apply to all of the issues presented to the court.

I closely follow the writings of these Supreme Court observers. The consensus among them is that, not only will the court uphold the Affordable Care Act (aka "ObamaCare"), they will do so by either a six to three vote or a seven to two vote.

One very prominent Supreme Court observer (who read the briefs submitted to the court by all of the parties) was very dismissive of the claims that the law is unconstitutional. She all but said that they were wasting their time.

Many observers believe that the reason why President Obama has put so little effort into defending the law's constitutionality is because he believes the challenge has no merit. His opinion must be given considerable weight, inasmuch as he taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School, which is one of the country's foremost law schools.

March 27, 2012 at 12:17 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Maybe. They legalized the murder of unborn babies 7 to 2. I think they declared black citizenship unconsitutional 7 to 2 (Dred Scott, A.D. 1856).
The Constitution is short enough to read. It gives the feds power over bankruptcy, copyright, and private warships ('letters of marque and reprisal'), but not over health care or health insurance.
Jesus is libertarian. Pray Psalm 58 (remembering, however, Jeremiah 18).

March 27, 2012 at 12:33 a.m.
onetinsoldier said...

Obviously this is not a Chattanooga area doctor. Not a single bible in the office. It could be that the bibles are in the waiting room and he is actually ordering contraception for two different women. Bless their hearts!

March 27, 2012 at 12:50 a.m.
David_Franks said...

AndrewLohr--

RE "They legalized the murder of unborn babies 7 to 2"

A fetus is not a baby. And if you are familiar with the Bible, you should know that a baby did not become a person until the age of one month-- after its birth. And you should be aware that God outlined a procedure for inducing an abortion in an unfaithful wife who was pregnant. The unborn of the Bible are as badly off as today's post-born are under Republicans.

RE "Jesus is libertarian."

Jesus was a Goddamned red pinko Communist.

Apparently you aren't familiar with either Testament.

March 27, 2012 at 1:07 a.m.
onetinsoldier said...

Come on Clay, low hanging fruit. If you leave it too long it rots.

Just how is jesus suppose to figure out what is really in dick cheneys heart now? Wouldn't it truly be ironic if his heart came from a dead veteran?

If it's ok for tax payers to pay for a heart transplant for a 71 year old war criminal then I think birth control ought to be on the table too.

By taking this heart, cheney managed to kill one more person before his final exit. I wonder who didn't get that heart?

Let all have the same healthcare plan afforded to a war ciminal.

March 27, 2012 at 1:12 a.m.
onetinsoldier said...

Are you sober tonight andrew? Good I'm going to make fun of you anyway. It's always hard to tell.

Just so you understand the science of it all. When it sucks air, ITS ALIVE. When it quits sucking air, ITS DEAD.

P.S. Andrew, and when it's dead, the jesus synapse dies too.

Now you probably need a drink.

March 27, 2012 at 1:24 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

DEFINING REPUBLICAN POLICY

In November of 1993, John Chafee (R-RI), along with 20 cosponsors, introduced S. 1770, the so-called Republican Health Care Plan. Some Americans who could afford health insurance but refused to buy it were making everyone else pay more for premiums. Republicans said that was un-American.

For nearly 2 decades, the core of the Republican Health Care plan remained the individual mandate. It was called a sound, small government solution to the 'free rider' problem of hospital ERs being required to treat everyone whether they had insurance or not.

But it was not always a Republican Policy. It sprang to life in response to the Clinton Health Care Plan that would require employers to provide health insurance for employees. Get it? Clinton said, 'EMPLOYERS.' Republicans said, 'NO, INDIVIDUALS.'

Through the years GOP candidates probably stuck with the IM because most democrats talked about Single Payer and Medicare for everyone. Republicans never thought a democratic president would ever agree to such a thing. In fact, in a 2008 speech Newt Gingrich said it was "immoral" for those who can afford to have insurance not to buy it. "I think you have got to require," Gingrich explained, "Everybody to either have insurance or post a bond."

When President Obama announced legislative plans to find a bipartisan solution to solve the health insurance problem two republicans spoke out. First, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IO), one of the original sponsors of S. 1770 back in 1993, lauded the sound conservative principles of the individual mandate. If you can afford to buy insurance you shouldn't expect the rest of us to pay your medical bills.

Mitt Romney chimed in and called on President Obama to require all Americans to buy insurance and, like Romney did in Massachusetts, use tax penalties as a backstop to enforce the individual mandate.

But Republicans never saw Obama's curveball, the president's naive attempt to write, pass, and sign into law a truly bipartisan health care reform bill. Even though he campaigned against the IM in 2008, Obama changed his mind, agreed with republicans, and decided to adopt the Individual Mandate as the centerpiece of the new Law. Liberals were outraged! How could Obama break a campaign promise, sell out 'single payer' and agree with the GOP on IM?

Predictably, when Obama said, INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.

The Republicans screamed, "TYRANNY!"

Mitt Romney, began to campaign against ObamaCare and claimed to have always held that position with severely conservative conviction.

Chuck Grassley, still representing Iowa in the Senate, without a shred of shame, announced the Individual Mandate provision was probably UNCONSTITUTIONAL

It's no wonder Congress has an approval rating in the high single figures.

It's a bigger wonder that anyone still votes republican. What DO those people stand for?

March 27, 2012 at 1:34 a.m.
onetinsoldier said...

Blackwater, You left out the etch a sketch part. Without the etch a sketch part what you wrote doesn't make sense. Bless their evil hearts.

March 27, 2012 at 1:40 a.m.
MTJohn said...

onetinsoldier said...

Blackwater, You left out the etch a sketch part. Without the etch a sketch part what you wrote doesn't make sense. Bless their evil hearts.

Do you mean that Romney intends to do to our nation's health care what he did to Hasboro?

March 27, 2012 at 2:45 a.m.
fairmon said...

The supreme court will endorse the AHCA regardless of whether it is literally constitutional or not. Unfortunately they will not rule on several items addressed by laws not questioned such as:

o Negotiated rates by Medicare, Medicaid, an HMO or PPO or any other mandated or negotiated rates for a select few which shifts cost to those not included in a select group. Providers should be required to charge everyone the same fee or rates without conferring with or being in collusion with other providers to "fix" prices or engage in unfair competition.

o Limiting the choice of insurers to those approved by a state insurance commissioner. Is this consistent with interstate commerce laws?

o Allowing Medicare and medicaid to operate without having the reserves required of other insurers. Every dollar of Medicare and Medicaid claims is paid with 40 cents of borrowed money with no action to correct the lack of viability.

o Limiting the number of qualified applicants provided an opportunity to become a doctor.

Those that have not read the 2300 pages of the bill should do so before the next congressional vote. One irritating example is insuring a kid until age 26 that is not attending school or a job preparation program. This shift cost to those without kids. If you are on medicare your premiums will double or more by 2014 with significantly reduced coverage. Be sure to pay attention to the power of the unelected president appointed patient protection panel.

The question before the court should be is it constitutional for the federal government to be involved in health care and pensions beyond reasonable regulations assuring protection of savings and other preparation for retirement and fair competiton among health care insurers and among health care providers. It is a stretch to find anything that gives the federal government the authority they have assumed which should be left to the states.

March 27, 2012 at 3:57 a.m.
mtnman1 said...

BlockquoteDavid_Franks said... AndrewLohr-- RE "They legalized the murder of unborn babies 7 to 2" A fetus is not a baby.

You guys still believe this? So the child my wife is carrying right now, who we see yawning, sucking his thumb, stretching out, etc is not a baby? It is a child. We all have to decide what sins we can live with. You've chosen killing babies.

March 27, 2012 at 4:32 a.m.
joneses said...

Does anyone find atheist David Franks quoting the Bible hypocritical? Another fine example of liberals using misinterpretations to spread their lies. The reason these liberals hate christianity and the Bible is because they both get in the way of their agenda which is complete government control of every aspect of our lives. Have you ever witnessed a communist regime that did not outlaw religion or did not have some kind of restrictions on religions? This is all part of their massive plan to spread their socialist/communist agenda to exploit their own ruling class which will then be the wealthy they love to demonize. Obamacare is just another step toward complete socialism/communism and was not passed because the government wants to improve health care or cares about the well being of it's citizens. Obamacare was designed and passed with one purpose in mind, to make more people dependent on government. Only a fool could not recognize Obamacare for what it is. Obama and the liberals are liars.

March 27, 2012 at 6:36 a.m.
EaTn said...

The Supreme Court gets another chance within twelve years to select our country's president.

March 27, 2012 at 6:41 a.m.
joneses said...

Obamacare is not going to help you. This is a subject that one could write an entire book on, not because of it’s 1900 (plus) pages, but because it is un sustainable, irresponsible and unconstitutional. First off, WELCOME TO SOCIALIST AMERICA! This bill HR 3962, is redistribution of wealth on a scale not yet seen in America and will not be dwarfed by any other proposed legislation except for Cap and Trade. Bottom line The Government can now Legally tell you what you have to buy. In this case it’s Health insurance. With the passage of this bill, they also destroy the incentives and rewards system of a capitalist economic system by controlling the entire medical field. The government now decides what the salary will be for a doctor, surgeon, physician assistant and other medical professionals. They also dictate where anyone who would choose to go into the medical field will live and practice. The government is actually taking away an incentive to be a doctor with the result being less doctors and long waits for medical attention. But with the government ruling what people have to buy what is to stop the government from ruling what students have to study in college? This is all part of the Democrat/Liberal Communist agenda.

March 27, 2012 at 6:42 a.m.
EaTn said...

Even if the SCOTUS sends this back to Congress, the law will not entirely be struck down because too many voters in the country are currently or soon will be helped by it. It's one thing to go along with the crowd in a poll, but it's another thing when you or your kids life is at stake.

March 27, 2012 at 7:04 a.m.
MTJohn said...

joneses said...Does anyone find atheist David Franks quoting the Bible hypocritical? Another fine example of liberals using misinterpretations to spread their lies. The reason these liberals hate christianity and the Bible is because they both get in the way of their agenda which is complete government control of every aspect of our lives

Joneses - I am among those who believe that the Bible is the norm for faith and life. The problem for everyone - especially Christians - is that Scripture always gets in the way of our selfish and self-serving agendas.

Except to inform us that there are boundaries between God's Kingdom of truth and every human kingdom of power, the Bible is not a political model. What I find hypocritical are Scripture quotes for political purposes because, almost invariably, they are efforts to remake God into our image.

March 27, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

At least The Wart is dealing with an important topic today. Not well, mind you. But just the same...

Too bad his Zimmerman/Voter-Laws joke came down before news about eye witnesses seeing sweet little Martin pummeling Zimmerman on the sidewalk came out. The bleeding heart race baiters are probably going to have to tuck tail on this one. Oh yes, they will wail that Zimmerman should not have followed. What a crock. Citizens should not take measures to protect themselves and their property when the police cannot. We should all just roll over and take it like a herd of sheep while the constituents of the demokrat party loot society on every level.

March 27, 2012 at 8:11 a.m.
hambone said...

Deepthroat told Woodward "follow the money".

When thinking about proposed legislation everyone should have this in mind. The Insurance Cartels spent millions lobbying against O-Care.

Rick Scott the present governor of Florida was on TV every 30 minutes raising money and lobbying against O-Care. Scott owns a chain of Walk-in Health Clinics (doc in the box) which his wife now runs, wink! wink! If everyone has health insurance Walk-in clinic would go broke!

Like the man said " FOLLOW THE MONEY"

March 27, 2012 at 8:27 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Gotta love those union thugs...

I had to reduce the video resolution to get it to stream well.

March 27, 2012 at 8:28 a.m.
davisss13 said...

I think the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

I also think whenever Republicans talk race, they lose big time.

March 27, 2012 at 8:33 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

agree with davisssss.

March 27, 2012 at 8:40 a.m.
davisss13 said...

hmmm....

March 27, 2012 at 8:55 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

If you have enough money to take aspirin, take two, then call me after you get a job and have insurance like those who actually work to provide healthcare for their family. All others step aside please.

March 27, 2012 at 9:07 a.m.
potcat said...

big,You stupid dumb Fool, I would ,"if i could" also wrestle someone following me with a gun to the ground and plummel his ass into next week, to defend myself from this dumbass wannabe copper Murdering Idiot.

Zimmer pursued Tyrell and shot and killed an innocent Black young man, and the hoodie thing is stupid, i wear one all the time!!!

March 27, 2012 at 9:11 a.m.
chatt_man said...

I enjoy reading everyone's opinions, whether I agree with them, or not, but I can't imagine David_ Franks having any positive contribution to this, or any other discussion. Do us all a favor David_Franks...

March 27, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.
acerigger said...

Note to BRP, that would be "witness",not "witnesses seeing sweet little Martin pummeling Zimmerman".(son of retired Judge Zimmerman)

March 27, 2012 at 10:12 a.m.
shifarobe said...

Hey, Junkie, there's a large "cadre" of people out here who think being a Constitutional lawyer doesn't mean a damn thing, since OBOOB is one. He swore on the Bible ("GDAmerica") and swore to uphold a document he called a document of "negative liberties". Let me translate what OBOOB and Democraps really say when the speak of compassion: You will buy what we tell you to buy, you will do the things we tell you to do even if you find them morally repugnant, you will lose freedom and like it it, you will give up your individuality, the first amendment doesn't apply to you if you don't belong to the correct party and have the appropriate beliefs, and NO MORE SCHOOL LUNCHES MADE AT HOME, DAMN IT!!

GET THIS, GET THIS, the OBOOB campaign merchandising arm is now selling hoodies. GEE I WONDER IF THAT'S JUST A BIG COINCIDENCE.

March 27, 2012 at 12:03 p.m.
mtngrl said...

GET THIS, GET THIS, the OBOOB campaign merchandising arm is now selling hoodies. GEE I WONDER IF THAT'S JUST A BIG COINCIDENCE.

So are Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Ron Paul... Its a conspiracy!!!!

March 27, 2012 at 12:09 p.m.
onetinsoldier said...

If they kill the mandate and allow the rest to stand then they kill the insurance companies. The insurance companies will have to raise rates to meet the requirements of the rest of the law and that will in turn result in less people buying their overpriced middleman product and they collapse. Final result; One payer medicare for all eventually. A good constitutional scholar like Obama might have forseen this and played their greed against them.

From zugzwang to checkmate in 3 moves.

March 27, 2012 at 12:29 p.m.
BobMKE said...

Finally Clay, back to the current huge issue of Oblameacare. I was not fooled by the media's "Wag the Dog" issues like slut's, birth control, racist or not a racist shooting. The sock puppet media will be doing this until November so we have to get used to this.

March 27, 2012 at 12:53 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blackwater48 said: “For nearly 2 decades, the core of the Republican Health Care plan remained the individual mandate. . . Predictably, when Obama said, INDIVIDUAL MANDATE. The Republicans screamed, "TYRANNY! . . . Mitt Romney, began to campaign against ObamaCare and claimed to have always held that position with severely conservative conviction.”

Yes, I believe the repetitive knee-jerking activities of the Republicans have permanently damaged their collective brain, which ultimately has made them useless when it comes to any kind of serious discussion involving the needs of this country.

The reality is if the U.S. is going to remain competitive in the global marketplace, it’s going to need an effective healthcare system, which we have not had in spite of the fact that we are currently spending approximately $2 trillion annually on healthcare expenses – almost two-and-a-half more than the average industrialized nation already providing universal health coverage.

As for Obamacare, I would have preferred a straightforward single payer system, but I think the healthcare reform law signed by President Obama is a positive step toward making health care less expensive in the U.S. – and definitely more accessible.

March 27, 2012 at 1:08 p.m.
David_Franks said...

mtnman1--

RE "So the child my wife is carrying right now, who we see yawning, sucking his thumb, stretching out, etc is not a baby?"

The cute, endearing "behaviors" and affectations of fetuses are caused by the fact that they are suspended in liquid in a cramped space. A fetus does not "suck its thumb"; babies have to learn how to suck.

RE "It is a child."

No, it isn't. Never mind the fact that the Bible says that it isn't; a child is a young individual. Something that is vitally attached to its mother is not an individual. It has the potential to be a child, and if you want it to reach that potential, don't have it aborted, and good luck otherwise.

RE "We all have to decide what sins we can live with. You've chosen killing babies."

Not only have I never killed a baby, I have never had or caused an abortion. If abortion is truly morally wrong, then you should be able to speak against it without lying or using misleading, manipulative language.

March 27, 2012 at 1:24 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

David Franks, you have not given one shred of evidence that a fetus is not a baby as you claim and even using the Bible as a crutch.

So by YOUR definition, anyone who is dependent on someone else for their existence, that "something" is not an individual? So all people born with sydromes and birth defects who will always rely on someone for their care are not people? So a person who is paralyzed in an accident dependent on others to exist ceases to be a person? Wow, you must be a democrat. And by your definition you are not a person either since dems always on the governments teets. Sorry for that cut. I digressed.

I would like to know where in the Bible you could take a verse that far out of context to show that babies are not people.

March 27, 2012 at 2:28 p.m.
mtngrl said...

I did not read that as his definition at all Nurse... and if you were a real nurse you should know the difference between an actual physical tether and a figurative one.

March 27, 2012 at 3:18 p.m.
shoe_chucker said...

@ March 27, 2012 at 6:42 a.m jones ripped off some anonymous right wing nut job and claimed their work as his own. way to go jones, you are a common thief. i bet you are on gov'ment assisstance aren't you jones? you are too dam dumb to be able to hold a job. if you do have a job i bet your coworkers hate the way you always take credit for their labor.

not that it matters, you have zero credibility with any thinking person who happens upon the things you(and i use the term loosely) write.

March 27, 2012 at 3:21 p.m.
timbo said...

From a businessman's standpoint, I really don't care what the court does on Obamacare. As usual, for you stupid liberals, it will be one step forward, two steps back.

Since this selfish, unfeeling, conservative pays for ALL of my employees health care costs...yea, I am an idiot.. To pay for skyrocketing insurance cost due to Obamacare, I will just raise prices to pay for it or make my employees pay the difference out of their pockets. Again..you stupid liberals are at the end of the food chain so you will have to incur these new expenses. How stupid can you be?

Then if he goes to the single payer system, I will drop my great insurance for all my employees. They then can fend for themselves. I will have to pay a "fine" and it will be $40,000 per year less than the total I pay for insurance now. I will then give my "key" employees a raise to get better insurance or supplement with AFLAC and the workers you liberals say you love so much will be out of luck and on their own.

I hope I get back from my $40,000 vacation to see all of the workers affected by this start hanging you liberals from lamp posts. I hope there is enough lamp posts. Again, two steps back....

So you dummies will get what you want, a single payer, European, Canadian style health care system. The problem is that people with money won't be affected at all, they will still have the best health care and you imbeciles won't. You'll be waiting months for that emergency heart by-pass or for that cancer treatment and probably die before you get it. Poetic justice...

Let's put it to music...one step forward, two steps back....We businessmen know how to adapt to anything you liberals come up with short of communism because we are smarter than you are. Producers and job creators are smarter than liberal welfare worshipers. That's why I would vote for a dog turd before I would Obama.

Liberalism should be classified as a mental disorder.

March 27, 2012 at 3:28 p.m.
joneses said...

Obamacare is not going to help you. This is a subject that one could write an entire book on, not because of it’s 1900 (plus) pages, but because it is un sustainable, irresponsible and unconstitutional. First off, WELCOME TO SOCIALIST AMERICA! This bill HR 3962, is redistribution of wealth on a scale not yet seen in America and will not be dwarfed by any other proposed legislation except for Cap and Trade. Bottom line The Government can now Legally tell you what you have to buy. In this case it’s Health insurance. With the passage of this bill, they also destroy the incentives and rewards system of a capitalist economic system by controlling the entire medical field. The government now decides what the salary will be for a doctor, surgeon, physician assistant and other medical professionals. They also dictate where anyone who would choose to go into the medical field will live and practice. The government is actually taking away an incentive to be a doctor with the result being less doctors and long waits for medical attention. But with the government ruling what people have to buy what is to stop the government from ruling what students have to study in college? This is all part of the Democrat/Liberal Communist agenda.

March 27, 2012 at 3:31 p.m.
joneses said...

Shoechucker

You might want to change your panties as you have proven exactly what a wimp ass you really are. You are right I copy and paste some things. But you know what? There is not a thing you can do about it. Even if you could you are to chicken s%$t to do it. I have never drawn a dime from the government but I certainly have paid enough in to support your lazy ass. You are nothing but another spineless jellyfish who does not have the balls God gave a jack rabbit. I am surprised you did not get thrown in jail when you met your wife down on 23rd street. Or did you?

March 27, 2012 at 3:45 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

BigRidgePatriot:

I have a favor to ask you (or anybody else who can answer this question). How were you able to post that video in your comment?

I've never encountered a video that I thought would be appropriate to post (in a comment) here, but I frequently circulate embedded videos to my friends. Because I haven't been able to figure how how to do what you did, the best that I've been able to do is to provide a link to the website where the video is located. However, I consider that to be a poor substitute to what you have provided.

I would sincerely appreciate a response to my inquiry.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

March 27, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

Here's an update on the hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (AKA "ObamaCare")

Based on the tenor of their questions, it appears that:

▄ Four of the Justices are clearly in favor of the law ▄ Four are clearly opposed to it ▄ One (Chief Justice Roberts) gave inconsistent signals

However, you can't always predict how judges will rule based on the questions that they pose to the lawyers in oral argument. In two of the lower court cases (that were appealed to the Supreme Court) that upheld the constitutionality of the law, the questions the judges asked gave the impression that they were opposed to the law. Similarly, the same thing occasionally occurs in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, most of the dedicated U.S. Supreme Court observers were surprised by the amount of questions that were asked that seem to imply that those Justices thought the law is unconstitutional.

Overturning the law would mean a major change in jurisprudence. It would mean overturning 75 years of prior court decisions, something only a "activist" court would do. Thus, anybody who is in favor of holding that the law is unconstitutional is endorsing the concept of "activist judges."

March 27, 2012 at 4:13 p.m.
shoe_chucker said...

i work every day jones, and i am certainly not afraid of the likes of you. as long as you stay away from my house you *thief. you are no better than the "fleabaggers" you rail about, waiting for some poor unsuspecting blogger to throw you a crumb since you are too dam dumb to articulate you own crooked thoughts.

*articulate (v) - Bing Dictionary ar·tic·u·late

communicate something: to express thoughts, ideas, or feelings coherently
speak distinctly: to pronounce something or speak clearly
join to allow movement: to form the kind of joint or connection that allows movement

Synonyms: eloquent, clear, coherent, fluent, lucid, expressive, communicative

**thief (n) - Bing Dictionary thief [ theef ] Audio player

somebody who steals: somebody who steals something, especially one who intends to escape notice
March 27, 2012 at 4:31 p.m.
joneses said...

Does anyone see what News Junkie is up to? He has received his marching orders from the DNC, moveon.org, or George Soros to start the liberal demonizing process to label the judges that vote down the unconstitutional Obamacare as "Activist Judges" and those of us that do not support this will be "Activist". I am an Activist and proud of it because I know that Obamacare's only intention is to make people more dependent on government. Obamacare was not passed because this Marxist president cares about the well being of anyone or their health care. It is about government controlling your lives which has proven time and time again to be a failure just like this fool we have as a president.

March 27, 2012 at 4:31 p.m.
fairmon said...

mountainlaurel said....As for Obamacare, I would have preferred a straightforward single payer system, but I think the healthcare reform law signed by President Obama is a positive step toward making health care less expensive in the U.S. – and definitely more accessible.

I recommend you print your stated belief out or file it and remind yourself to review this statement late in 2014. There is no chance in hell this will make health care less expensive or more accessible. I know you have no use for free markets and competition, which we haven't had for years, but that is the only way health care and insurance can become less expensive. I wonder if you believe you will be able to keep your current coverage without significant premium increases which is not likely except government employees that live off of tax payer money.

March 27, 2012 at 4:32 p.m.
fairmon said...

Cuba recently began allowing people to buy or sell their home or their car plus they can be the owner and operator of a restaurant. The Cuban government owns or dictates how all other business and personal affairs are conducted. Pass a few more U.S. laws and regulations and we can again establish diplomatic relations with Cuba since both countries will have similar governments.

March 27, 2012 at 4:42 p.m.
shoe_chucker said...

jones the only thing you are "activist" about is stealing from other people and spewing their lies. you have become the very thing you despise.

March 27, 2012 at 4:49 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “There is no chance in hell this will make health care less expensive or more accessible.”

Please, Harp3339. The U.S. heathcare industry has been denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions for decades so how can you possibly claim that Obamacare will not make healthcare more accessible? And what about the people who can’t afford healthcare? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 50.7 million people in 2009 without health insurance. Clearly, Obamacare will change this shameful scenario.

Harp3339 said: “I know you have no use for free markets and competition, which we haven't had for years, but that is the only way health care and insurance can become less expensive.”

I see you’re still making stuff up as you go along, Harp3339. Just because I believe in responsible and effective government does not mean I’m opposed to free markets and competition. As for the cost of healthcare, why are we paying two and a half times more for healthcare in the U.S. and getting less coverage than other industrialized nations that already have universal healthcare systems in place? In 2009, the U.S. spent more than 17 percent of its GDP on healthcare, which is higher than any other developed nation. The bottomline is the current arrangement is simply not working. Competively speaking, it has put us at a real disadvantage. Again, if the U.S. is going to remain competitive in the global marketplace, it’s going to need an effective and affordable universal healthcare system for its citizens.

March 27, 2012 at 5:26 p.m.
David_Franks said...

nurseforjustice--

RE "you have not given one shred of evidence that a fetus is not a baby"

Nor have you given any evidence that a fetus IS a baby.

RE "even using the Bible as a crutch."

I'm not using the Bible as a crutch. I am simply pointing out that the Bible is not against abortion, for the benefit of people who are against abortion because they believe that the Bible is against abortion.

RE "So by YOUR definition, anyone who is dependent on someone else for their existence, that "something" is not an individual?"

Note that I said "Something that is vitally attached to its mother"-- that is, something that is physically attached to, and depends directly upon its mother (host) for its life. Please respond to what I said, not what you wish I had said. I hope that you are more attentive in nursing than you are in newspaper forum discussion.

RE "I would like to know where in the Bible you could take a verse that far out of context to show that babies are not people."

Here's a page with a few such verses:

http://tinyurl.com/43oyhrr

It ends with this:

"The Bible contains over 600 laws governing everything from fabrics to how to cut a beard yet contains no law prohibiting abortion. Jesus never mentioned it. As the Oxford Companion to the Bible notes:

"'Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27:3-7, indicates that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any status.'"

March 27, 2012 at 5:44 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

potcat said... "big,You stupid dumb Fool, I would ,"if i could" also wrestle someone following me with a gun to the ground and plummel his ass into next week, to defend myself from this dumbass wannabe copper Murdering Idiot. Zimmer pursued Tyrell and shot and killed an innocent Black young man, and the hoodie thing is stupid, i wear one all the time!!!"

I don't think you would be wandering around strange neighborhoods by yourself and staring down and then attacking (supposedly) the local neighborhood watch. So I think you are safe wearing your hoodie.

I also suppose if the neighborhood watch drove up you would not run away but greet them and the situation would be disarmed. I could be wrong however.

From the 911 call it is clear that Martin was acting like a perp. Any unfamiliar white kid acting that way would have attracted the same attention.

March 27, 2012 at 6:27 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

News_Junkie said... "How were you able to post that video in your comment?"

All I do is post the youtube url in the body of the message where I want it to appear. It cannot be the url of a page with an imbedded youtube video, it needs to be the native youtube url.

Enjoy!

March 27, 2012 at 6:36 p.m.
dude_abides said...

"The Supreme Court gets another chance within twelve years to select our country's president."

And its looking very much like they are going to get his one right as well. -tu_q

Glad we can put you down as a Bush supporter! The right man for the job. A brilliant statesman. A visionary. A giant on the world stage. The decider. LMAO

March 27, 2012 at 7:04 p.m.
onetinsoldier said...

He who doesn't use toilet paper, argues with unclean hands. He who has never read a book believes others haven't either.

March 27, 2012 at 7:05 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Now here I was getting all excited about January Jones scarfing down her placenta...

http://news.softpedia.com/news/January-Jones-Eats-Her-Own-Placenta-260983.shtml

...only to find that she had it dehydrated into vitamin pills. How boring!

March 27, 2012 at 7:17 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Ya know, I don't miss alprova a bit but I still hope he is OK. What no alpo for a day?

March 27, 2012 at 7:29 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

BigRidgePatriot:

Thanks!

March 27, 2012 at 7:31 p.m.
shoe_chucker said...

don't flatter your self tu_quixotic, i have been calling out the liars on here for quite some time. long before you you showed up and added to the cacophony.

and for jones, to help you expand your limited vocabulary.

cacophony (n) - Bing Dictionary ca·coph·o·ny [ kə kóffənee ] Audio player

unpleasant noise: an unpleasant combination of loud, often jarring, sounds
use of jarring sounds: the use of harsh unpleasant sounds in language, e.g. for literary effect

quixotic (adj) - Bing Dictionary quix·ot·ic [ kwik sóttik ] Audio player

excessively romantic: tending to take a romanticized view of life
impractical: motivated by an idealism that overlooks practical considerations
impulsive: tending to act on impulses
March 27, 2012 at 7:34 p.m.

Is a fetus a human being? Well, everyone on this forum was one, and are we not all human beings? Of course. So a fetus is a human being. It's illogical and just idiocy to argue a fetus is not a human being. You couldn't have arrived at this point without being a fetus first. So abortion is really the murder of an unborn human being? I can't see it any other way.

As far as "Obamacare" goes, that wonderful solution that so many have opted out of and have been given permission to opt out of, it's not looking good for the mandate. Justice Kennedy said it will fundamentally change our relationship with government. If he's a so-called swing vote, then the mandate may be toast. I'd be happy.

March 27, 2012 at 7:34 p.m.

I shouldn't have put a question mark on that. Abortion is the murder of an unborn human being.

March 27, 2012 at 7:36 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

One of the primary plaintiffs, Mary Brown, recently filed for personal bankruptcy because she can't pay her medical bills because she doesn't want to purchase health care insurance.

And guess who will pick up the tab?

Johnny Tax Payer.

Why should these dead beats want to purchase Insurance when they can get the tax payer to pay for the health care for them?

March 27, 2012 at 7:41 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

What do you call placenta ingestion, constructive cannibalism?

March 27, 2012 at 7:43 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

Republicans believe your rights as a human being begin at conception and end a birth.

March 27, 2012 at 7:50 p.m.
hambone said...

The TROLLS are all out tonight!!

March 27, 2012 at 8:07 p.m.

Stanley that's pretty stupid and lame. Now if I say abortion supporters believe the unborn don't necessarily have a right to be born, I'd be absolutely correct.

March 27, 2012 at 8:08 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

Set forth below is a link to a pertinent article. The title is self-explanatory: Health-care provision at center of Supreme Court debate was a Republican idea.

To further complicate the irony, when Barak Obama was running for the Presidency, he was opposed to the individual mandate (except to the extent that it required parents to obtain coverage for their children).

To read the article, go to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-care-provision-at-center-of-supreme-court-debate-was-a-republican-idea/2012/03/25/gIQAoCHocS_story.html?wpisrc=nl_politics

March 27, 2012 at 9:06 p.m.
David_Franks said...

blondebutnotdumb--

RE "Is a fetus a human being?"

A fetus is human, but it is not a human being.

RE "So a fetus is a human being."

By that logic, a human being is a fetus.

RE "It's illogical and just idiocy to argue a fetus is not a human being."

That's why nobody has made that argument. You should pay closer attention to the comments.

RE "So abortion is really the murder of an unborn human being."

The word "murder" refers to the killing of a person. A fetus is not a person.

March 27, 2012 at 9:59 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blondbutnotdumb said: “As far as "Obamacare" goes . . . Justice Kennedy said it will fundamentally change our relationship with government. If he's a so-called swing vote, then the mandate may be toast. I'd be happy.”

A couple of years ago, I read in the New England Journal of Medicine that a World Health Report ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in the world.

The New England Journal article also mentioned that the U.S. is number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita, but ranks 39th for infant mortality; 43rd for adult female mortality; 42nd for adult male mortality; and 36th for life expectancy.

Does this also make you happy, BBND? . . . Our poor ranking concerned me.

March 27, 2012 at 10:14 p.m.

I was a fetus, you were a fetus, we were all fetuses.

Were you a fetus? Are you a person now? An unborn human being is person that hasn't been born yet.

Abortion is used as birth control in this country. That speaks to how cold our society has become since roe v wade.

Newsjunkie, Republican idea, Democrat idea, whatever, it's a bad idea and the justices are letting it be known.

March 27, 2012 at 10:20 p.m.

An unborn baby/unborn person, say, 6 months along, couldn't have gotten to that point without being a fetus first, correct?

A new born baby/person couldn't have been born if it were not an unborn baby first, and a fetus before that, correct?

A toddler couldn't have gotten to that point without being a new born baby first, correct?

You see what I'm saying?

March 27, 2012 at 10:33 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Timbo said: "From a businessman's standpoint, I really don't care what the court does on Obamacare. As usual, for you stupid liberals, it will be one step forward, two steps back. Since this selfish, unfeeling, conservative pays for ALL of my employees health care costs...yea, I am an idiot.

Sorry, but your crowing is a bit suspect here, Timbo. In fact, I strongly suspect that you don’t have very many employees working for you, if any. From everything that I’ve read most companies in the U.S. have been having a very difficult time keeping up with the rising cost of employer-sponsored health insurance. In fact, a 2008 Kaiser Foundation reports says that access to employer-sponsored health insurance has been on a serious decline and health premiums for workers have risen 114 percent in the last decade.

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7840.pdf

March 27, 2012 at 10:45 p.m.

You know, people come here from all over the world for medical related things. This is a great country with great medical care. It seems to me that people are very willing to pay for all kinds of things, but not medical stuff. For some reason, that should all be free. Wierd. People don't mind paying for ipods, big screen tv's, you name it, but medical related things someone else should pay for. Wierd!

March 27, 2012 at 11:08 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Tu_quo_que said: "Now that is exactly what I'm talking about ... Originality?"

But it's true, Tu_quo_que. Surely, you wouldn't want Stanley to tell a fib.

March 27, 2012 at 11:09 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blondbutnotdumb said: "You know, people come here from all over the world for medical related things."

So why does the U.S. rank 39th for infant mortality; 43rd for adult female mortality; 42nd for adult male mortality; and 36th for life expectancy, BBND? Surely, it is not a matter of the U.S. providing great care for some but not others?

Blondbutnotdumb said: "This is a great country with great medical care."

Personally, I'm not satisfied with a system that ranks 37th in the world. We can do better.

March 27, 2012 at 11:20 p.m.
David_Franks said...

blondebutnotdumb--

RE "Were you a fetus? Are you a person now?"

Were you in kindergarten? Are you a high school graduate now?

RE "You see what I'm saying?"

Yes, I do. It doesn't address the issue. Even if every person was once a fetus, a fetus is not a person.

RE "You know, people come here from all over the world for medical related things."

To be more specific, rich people (and people who will not be paying for their own procedures) come here from all over the world for medical-related things.

March 28, 2012 at 12:02 a.m.
David_Franks said...

tu_quoque--

RE "So … I take it that makes you a jesus freak?"

I'm sure you take it however you can get it, but in this case you are incorrect: nothing makes me a Jesus freak.

RE infant mortality

There is indeed some variability in rankings based on what is reported, though the CDC concluded in a report that these differences in reporting are not likely to be the primary factor in our poor showing:

"...it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking. In 2005, 22 countries had infant mortality rates of 5.0 or below. One would have to assume that these countries did not report more than one-third of their infant deaths for their infant mortality rates to equal or exceed the U.S. rate. This level of underreporting appears unlikely for most developed countries.

"The United States compares favorably with Europe in the survival of infants born preterm. Infant mortality rates for preterm infants are lower in the United States than in most European countries. However, infant mortality rates for infants born at 37 weeks of gestation or more are generally higher in the United States than in European countries.

"The primary reason for the United States’ higher infant mortality rate when compared with Europe is the United States’ much higher percentage of preterm births."

See http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm

Here is a list of countries reporting all live births as of 2004 (per CDC report linked above), with their 2005 and 2010 infant mortality rates (probability of dying between birth and age 1 per 1000 live births), according to the World Health Organization, in parentheses: Austria (4,4), Denmark (4,3), England and Wales (5,5 [United Kingdom]), Finland (3,2), Germany (4,3), Hungary (7,5), Italy (4,3), Northern Ireland (5,5 [United Kingdom]), Portugal (4,3), Scotland (5,5 [United Kingdom]), Slovak Republic (8,7 [Slovakia]), Spain (5,4), Sweden (3,2), United States (7,7).

(IMR figures from http://apps.who.int/ghodata/?vid=200)

As you can see, even in a group of countries using the same reporting criteria, the United States doesn't show well.

RE the link you posted

The post ends: "Even if the counting methods were uniform, we'd still be lower than many countries. This is preventable through education of young mothers who invariably fail to get available pre-natal care. That, and making an attempt to address the epidemic of babies having babies would go a long way to lowering the infant mortality rate."

Yet conservatives are going out of their way to make it more difficult for young mothers to get prenatal care, and for "babies" to get the sex education they need in order to reduce their baby epidemic.

And what about all of those other medical statistics where the United States lags?

March 28, 2012 at 1:51 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.