Comments about ‘Charles Krauthammer: Overturning Obamacare not 'unprecedented' step’

Charles is a fox news Gop hack. His veiws are not even sensible. They are one sided and bias. Fair and balanced, Right??

Mr. Krauthammer listed many FACTS that can be debated civilly. Calling him a "hack" is neither civil nor does it enlighten anyone.

- Krauthammer pointed out that Mr. Obama lied when he said "strong majority".

- Krauthammer pointed out that Mr. Obama lied when he spoke about the authority of the Supreme Court, i.e. Roe v Wade.

- Krauthammer pointed out that Mr. Obama directly attacked a co-equal branch of the Federal Government, implying taht Mr. Obama acted like a spoiled child who stomps and pouts when he can't have his way.

- Krauthammer pointed out that the administration had no answer when their lawyer was asked to state the limiting principle of the governments enumerated powers.

Far from being a "hack" Mr. Krauthammer stated the obvious. Those who have no argument will act just like Mr. Obama acted. They will call names and stamp their feet in frustration.

Great article! The truth will set you free! In this case, free from Obamacare!

Re: homebrew South Jordan, UT

Obama has been backtracking ever since he put his foot in his mouth. He can kiss Obamacare goodby. Thankfully!!

On paper at least, the primary job of the court is not to defer to a democratically elected congress but to the constitution.

I would argue that an even higher responsibility of any court is to do what is right. For example, in the days when slavery was legal, there was nothing in law or in the constitution to allow any judge to set any slave fee or to get rid of slavery. Yet had any court
Done this, cudos to that court.

Another example, suppose a judge didn't have the legal power to free an innocent man after being convicted by a jury he knew to be corrupt or inept, but the judge did it anyway? Would this be wrong?

There is a higher law than any law of man, including the constitution.

"What then is the limiting principle?"

There is no limiting principle. For sure, the Constitution seems to say the government has limited and enumerated powers. But since the limits and enumerations are not clearly defined there are, for all practical purposes, no limits.

If the government is concerned about the commercial aspects of, say, the sale of broccoli, it can decide the Constitution allows it to decide whether people should buy it or not. Doesn't matter if you eat it. Just buy it to keep the stuff moving to maintain/improve the economy of the broccoli industry.

@cjb: "I would argue that an even higher responsibility of any court is to do what is right. For example, in the days when slavery was legal, there was nothing in law or in the constitution to allow any judge to set any slave fee or to get rid of slavery."

The US Supreme Court should be constrained to rule only on what is in the Constitution... else it is creating law... which is the task and responsibility of the Congress. The Court's job should be very simple. If the issue is not covered in the Constitution its only response should be to refer the issue to the law makers for action. In my view, it was out of order with the Roe v. Wade decision. It would also be out of order issuing any decision about slavery... since it's not addressed in the Constitution.

President Obama may say this in "unprecidented"... but that doesn't make his statment true.

Fact is... it happens all the time. During all administrations (Republican or Democrat). And it's a good thing we have a less politicised branch of the government to help protect us from Congresses that have gotten out of balance and run amock and think because they got the majority they can do anything they want (regardless of what the Constitution says).

Richards:: your party knows all about lying. Weapons of mass destruction, does that ring a bell. Turn the channel, or listen to another source from the "Lame stream media" You Gop minons are so out of touch with reality.

To everyone that has said they would be happy to see Obamacare struck down, what are your solutions to an alternative fix to the healthcare system? It seems that most people agree that there are problems with what we have and a simple thing like tort reform isn't the whole answer. What ARE the answers?

Re: ThatsSoUtah Fredericksburg, VA
"what are your solutions to an alternative fix to the healthcare system?"

For starters we could get the federal government out of the healthcare business. They are running Social Security into bankruptcy and would do the same thing with Obamacare.

Reminds me of "Ineptocracy". Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) is defined as a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

@Rifleman

I'm curious as to what your major problems are with the Obama healthcare reform bill. Is your problem with the required coverage portion or do you have a problem with government regulation in general?

Right now, I am not able to afford an insurance policy for my family. I lost my job and took a job that moved me across the country instead of sitting on unemployment for ages. The cheapest policy provided by my employer is $1,200 per month out of my pocket. Nearly as much as my rent is. Most politicians say that you should get insurance through an employer. Why is that? Why can I not get a reasonable policy at a reasonable price via alternative methods? There is a single insurance company in my area that will provide maternity coverage on a personal, non employer based, policy. The smallest deductible they would do for that is $2,500. The cost on that was still over $800 per month. The only real option I have is a high deductible covers nothing bankruptcy protection policy.

Tell me, do you see any problems with this situation? What are your thoughts, opinions, solutions?

ThatsSoUtah,
I'm not Rifleman, but from reading what he's already posted I think I can answer your question. It's not as politicised as you're trying to make it. He's not out to get you. He's not against ALL regulation. He's not opposed to you getting affordable healthcare. What we are against are the parts of the bill that are "unconstitutional"!

We should ALL agreement that if something's against our Constitution... it should be struck down by the Supreme_Court! I'm assuming you agree with that.

The ony issue is... is the mandate to buy insurance from private companies a violation of the limits placed on our Federal Government in our Constitution. if it is... it should be struck down. If it's not... then it may stand. That's why the Supreme_Court is involved. LET THEM DO THEIR JOB. Fortunatly it isn't up to partisan people to decide this in the opinion column. This is WHY WE HAVE a Supreme_Court!

Surely you don't want it to stand, whether it's against our Federal Constitution or not... Right?

So let the Supreme_Court do their job.

Re: ThatsSoUtah

An excellent alternative would be for Virginia and other states to come up with their own plan that works for thier state. The use of health insurance and care out of state is the exception not the rule. Let the Fed's brainstorm rules for the exception and leave the rest to the states.

If you are worried specifically about maternity coverage it is typically more expensive when it comes to insurance because it is something that can be planned. A couple can sign up, get the coverage, have the baby within a year and then drop the coverage once they no longer need it. You would be better off being self insured for typical maternity costs and finding a company that only covers atypical maternity costs. Then I be you would find a cheaper plan.

Counter intelligence,, I dont think so. If you have to say "Fair and Balanced" its probably not. Dont use the word intelligent in your handle, cuz your not. Who cares what the GOP led supreme court says, arent they the ones who gave us George Bush instead of AL Gore in 2000? WOW That worked out so well!! You GOP clowns are real funny. I bet you listen to Rush, Sean, And Glen too. They are so smart. They tell you exactly what to think, and then thats how you think. Real Smart gop clowns.

@homebrew,

Looks like you'll be sticking your foot in your mouth like Obama has recently. "Dont use the word intelligent in your handle, cuz your not." Ouch! Thanks for being civil.

"Who cares what the GOP led supreme court says, arent they the ones who gave us George Bush instead of AL Gore in 2000? WOW That worked out so well!!"

You think Bush was bad, thank goodness we didn't have Al Gore! Besides, Obama's not doing too great, either. He's hurting our economy and financial situation far more than Bush ever did.

Re: ThatsSoUtah Fredericksburg, VA

My main problems with Obamacare is that it will be managed by people who are incapable of using common sense, will cost trillions more than they are telling us, and will dumb down the quality of service we receive. Yes, there is a reason why the British have bad teeth, and why Canadians currently come to the USA for medical treatment.

There is no free lunch. Those who can't afford health care will expect those who can to pay higher premiums. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" - Karl Marx

@ThatsSoUtah: "To everyone that has said they would be happy to see Obamacare struck down, what are your solutions to an alternative fix to the healthcare system?"

Plan your life. I've had insurance since age 20. And will keep it until I die. If you don't plan ahead and end up with health issues, you are simply asking someone, who planned ahead, to pay your bills for you.

If you can't afford insurance then you are left trying to pay your bills when they arise. And part of that payment will come from canceling you TV cable, Internet access, drive a cheaper car, don't eat out, cancel vacation plans, etc. The problem is, people don't plan ahead and refuse to cancel amenities when they either need to buy insurance or need to pay their healthcare bills.

And, don't forget, there are alotta free healthcare facilities located in cities across the nation if you find yourself in a bind.

@Mr. Bean

I am 29 and this is the first time I have ever gone without some sort of coverage. My plan right now is nearly useless, but if I go without coverage, I will be hit with all sorts of pre-existing condition limitations.

You are making a lot assumptions about my lifestyle. I had planned ahead. I had savings in case of job loss or other emergencies. I got hit with the job loss one. I found a new job pretty quickly compared to many people out there. Still, being without your primary income eats through savings pretty quickly. All those things you mention to save money: I've done those. I'll make it, but my feeling that the healthcare industry in general needs substantial work.

@Rifleman
The whole thing about Canadians coming to the US for healthcare isn't true. There are already private for-pay practices in Canada that Canadians can go to if they want immediate treatment for non-immediate needs. Their system works much better than most Americans think it does. Don't believe everything you read in emails forwarded from Aunt Molly.

I agree that if STATES what this type of healthcare... they should pass STATE laws and fund it at the STATE level. I don't think it should be run at a Federal Level. That type of control over our wallets, our health, and our very lives... should not be given to Federal politicians.

This reminds me of the futuristic government system in the Hunger Games where everything was funneled from the districts to the Capitol to care for select districts while others struggled in squallor.

This is a first step towards what Progressives really want... A Federal Healthcare_System. When beurocrats in Washington decide where new hospitals will be built, where medicines are shippped, and who will get care... I fear small (few votes)states like Utah and small people like me will get 1970's Walter Reed type healthcare (rats, broken equipment, outdated medicine, etc)

If you want to do it... do it, and fund it at a local/State level (where you can vote to change it if it fails). Not at a FEDERAL level where politics would eventually influence who gets what when politicians need votes.

Don't let the Captitol control our lives.