« The Ambiguities & Abominations of ObamaCare | Main | The Affordable Care Act can’t get its act together »

Thursday, March 29, 2012


Donald Pay

What I was struck by in the oral arguments was the seeming ignorance of Scalia. At least I got the feeling the "liberal" justices and Kennedy were taking their jobs seriously. Even Alito and Roberts seemed to know a little bit about what was going on. Scalia, though, was out in the ozone layer. He was particularly out of touch, seemingly disdainful that he might have to read the bill he was going to have to rule on. It was quite obvious that he didn't bother to read it before oral argument, nor had he bothered to read much of the briefs. His "questions" were ignorant of fact, and he spouted talking points straight from Fox News.

Stan Gibilisco

To me, the greatest calamity in all this business is the way everybody talks about the world's most important court judges as "liberal" or "conservative."

I always thought that the Supreme Court of the United States was supposed to rise and remain above politics. If it ever did so, it evidently does so no longer.

Bill Fleming

Everything you are arguing is moot point, KB. It was probably fun to write, but that's about it. If you don't want to buy health insurance, don't. You will instead be charged a penalty by the IRS.

Call it a tax if it makes you feel better.

Then the government will have some cash to pick up your tab after they find you at the latrine via a taxpayer funded search. They'll helecopter you in to an emergency room, and you get some adequate looking after on the government nickel.

If you don't make it, the people will bury you.

And if by then, you haven't paid the fine for refusing to pay your way in the health care system, they'll wipe it off the books.

No worries, KB. You're free to be as much of an irresponsible flake as you choose to be.

This is America, you know!

Bill Fleming

Helicopter... sorry.

Bill Fleming

The point is, we already have a default form of Universal Health Care in the US. Problem is, it is the most expensive, least intentional, purely reactionary form of it imaginable. A lot of Democrats were upset with SHS for voting against the Health Care Bill, but in my opinion for the wrong reasons. Her reason was fairly sound... it was a giveaway to the Health Insurance industry. I share her concern in that. What should have happened instead was that the Democrats introduce and pass an Extended Medicare bill... single payer, universal health. It didn't happen, and that is the fault of the Democrats, imho. We had the shot. We should have gone for all the marbles.


Here is the irony: Our current laws (perfectly constitutional or at least facing no court challenge) force hospitals to treat those who can't pay for their care. The hospitals pass those costs along to those who can pay because they have insurance. And those with insurance ended up paying more because of this cost shifting. So the court is saying it is fine to "mandate" those with insurance must also pay for those without. But, they question whether the government can mandate those who will need and will use medical help should be "mandated" to pay for their own treatment by buying their own insurance.

Thus if the court decides against the individual mandate, they will have reenforced an individual "right" for those who don't buy insurance to mooch off the rest of us. Sure sounds like a solid conservative principle to me.

Stan Gibilisco

If Congress had passed single-payer (aka "Kucinich-care"), would the Supreme Court be hearing the case right now? (I honestly don't know.)

Actually, I agree with the radical liberals on this one. Obamacare is a mess, and should never have been passed. They should have gone for Kucinich-care instead.

Sooner or later the American people will wake up on this one, methinks. I suppose it will be later -- umpty-nine gazillion and one dead bodies later, where that one is your baby sister.

Free enterprise is great, "the market" is great, when applied to systems for which it can work. It does not work, in my opinion, for medical care.


OK, who is going to pay for Obamacare? First was to cost $900 billion (in Obama's and Pelosi's and Reid's minds in order to keep it under a trillion). Once the CBO got the correct facts, it now will cost supposedly $1.7 trillion, about double. And then after new facts just discovered, is up to $2.6 trillion. And I heard $82 trillion after ten years. I think you could take all the wealth of this nation and you couldn't afford this monstrosity. Yes, medical care does need to be addressed, but this unread bill is unconstitutional and so illegal. And does the above poster actually think the Supreme Court should have to read thru 2700 pages before rendering an opinion when the legislators didn't and admittedly couldn't?


Liberalism is a mental disorder. Those who suffer from it lack the understanding of the heap of rubble that this disorder has left in its wake. The historical facts have been laid as far back to ancient Grease to the USSR and the current western Europe. The United States of America is currently under a serious out-brake of this mental disorder and thats why I think the liberals want this health care mandate. Because they want to share their disease and make sure everyone is infected with or by this plague and suffer from liberalism.


sorry, Greece, not Grease, like my wifes cook'n.

Ken Blanchard

Jamz: I don't think it is helpful to say that "Liberalism is a mental disorder." It is possible that it suffers from internal contradictions and that it is historically dependent on a view of human nature that is no longer sustainable. However, its proponents are quite sane and now and then they have something important to tell us.

larry kurtz

vox populi, yer welcome, Doc.


"In case you need a book to tell you what you already know, Dr. Lyle Rossiter, Jr., M.D., wrote a book about modern liberalism's irrationality being the product of psychopathology: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world's political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty:

"So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche." The Liberal Mind reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world's political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty.

This makes complete sense and explains the Liberal thinking and behavior that defies any other explanation."

"Liberals clinically mad, concludes top psychiatrist
Eminent doctor makes case leftist ideology is a mental disorder

WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

“Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” “Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

“A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do,” he says. “A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.”

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

“The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,” he says. “When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.”

larry kurtz

you found another earth hater to worship at your blog, Ken: how novel.

larry kurtz

Which are you, Jammer: KKK or JBS?

tom scott

hmmm..."Jamz" is Larry under a pseudonym. Clear from the wording of the posts. "Jamz", if I am wrong I apologize.

Bill Fleming

"So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche." The Liberal Mind reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world's political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty.

This makes complete sense and explains the Liberal thinking and behavior that defies any other explanation."

It doesn't make any sense at all. It is pure psychobabble. Utter jibberish. If what you present here in your first volley is all you think you need to establish your argument, there isn't much sense in reading the rest of your post. I'll try though.

Meanwhile Jamz, you read this, and then let's compare notes:

Bill Fleming

Okay... made it through. It seems to me that Rossiter's claims could as eally be equally directed at the philosophies of the Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln. I get "Ayan Rand" out of it more than anything else. Overgeneralized, sensationalized, individualist horse pucky. But then, that's standard fare at the World Net Daily, isn't it?

Bill Fleming

There is no more evidence that liberalism is a function of transference than there is that Rossiter's analysis is a function of countertransferrence, a condition not uncommon among psychiatrists who offer pop books without any peer review.

In fact, given his sweeping generalizations and willingness to stereotype and diagnose well over half the world's population as being mentally ill, his countertransferrence becomes highly likely, not to mention a good splash of narcissistic personality disorder. Must be where the Jamster gets it. Reading too many of the wrong newspapers and books. LOL.


believing that somehow that things will get better with the leftest philosophy is outright delusional as history dictates. it has been and always will be a complete failure. one can look back from when Sparta went from Lycurgus to Solon, the leftest communist ideology failed. and all the societies that implemented this ideology has failed since. the problem with the left these days is that they lack the integrity to admit that their ideology is simply communism. and they refuse to simply look to history to see where they want to to take this boat. sheer blindness and complete denial i tell ya.


and that is the dysfunction, disorder. not an illness.

Bill Fleming

Oh, I don't know, Jamz. It's worked pretty well, so far. Our Liberal Democracy is the model upon which the entire free world is based. Not sure which type of government you would be advocating, but I invite you to list one free nation that practices it.

larry kurtz


Bill Fleming

The flaw in your and Rossiter's reasoning is tht you mistake altruism for selfishness, laziness and a sense of entitlement. This is most likely a psychological projection on your part. A society is just to hanker for the welbeing of all its members.

Here are a few notes from peole who say it better:

The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.
~Dietrich Bonhoeffer

A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization.
~Samuel Johnson, Boswell: Life of Johnson

The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.~John E. E. Dalberg, Lord Acton, The History of Freedom in Antiquity, [1877].

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

"Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest."
~Cardinal Roger Mahony, In a 1998 letter, Creating a Culture of Life

...and then there's that whole "Sermon on the Mount" thingy...

Bill Fleming

The argument that the most talented, driven, best looking and hardest working deserve the greater social priviledge is not an American democratic argument. It is a supremacist, totalitarian, elitist argument.


unless you live in western Europe where the "Liberal Democracy" exist then you must be confused if you're a U.S. citizen. the United States of America a republic that has a steadfast constitution. those who believe the health care mandate is constitutional are confused and have some romantic idea of western Europe. those who believe that the h.c. mandate is unconstitutional have the understanding why the U.S. constitution was written the way it was. so i guess we'll just have to wait to see what our sire, the King Justice Anthony Kennedy will decide for us commoners.

Bill Fleming

Now you're just being obtuse, Jamz. Is it out of ignorance? If so, perhaps this will enlighten you:

The comments to this entry are closed.