Justice Sonia Sotomayor's Shocking Ignorance [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Justice Sonia Sotomayor's Shocking Ignorance


snerd
03-31-2012, 12:28
I thought she was a wise Latino?
The liberal Supreme Court justices have demonstrated profound and shocking ignorance of the American health care system. Here's one of the most jarring examples (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/03/29/if_obamacare_goes_will_america_let_him_die_113660.html):

"What percentage of the American people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and that child was turned away because the parent didn't have insurance," asked Sotomayor, "... do you think there's a large percentage of the American population that would stand for the death of that child -- (who) had an allergic reaction and a simple shot would have saved the child?"

I have a precise answer for Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

The percentage of American people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and were turned away because the parent didn't have insurance is exactly zero.

No person, whether American or not, is ever turned away from an emergency room for lack of health insurance. Ever.

This simply does not happen....................

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/justice_sonia_sotomayors_shocking_ignorance.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/justice_sonia_sotomayors_shocking_ignorance.html#ixzz1qiinOkrR)

P35
03-31-2012, 12:48
she was only trying to make her team(team B. H. O. ) look good ..lying liars telling lies

Javelin
03-31-2012, 12:51
she was only trying to make her team(team B. H. O. ) look good ..lying liars telling lies

:agree:

Her seat is nothing more than a shill.

CAcop
03-31-2012, 13:02
What a tard. Its against the law to turn people away from an ER.

aircarver
03-31-2012, 17:00
So What ? .... She's got a job for life ........:upeyes:

.

UtahIrishman
03-31-2012, 17:12
My daughter has gone a long time without health insurance (Thankfully she now has a job with insurance). She has had several serious health problems over the years and has never been turned away because of lack of insurance. The hospitals have always either done it gratis or arranged payment plans with her.

maxsnafu
03-31-2012, 17:48
Her ignorance is not shocking. She was not picked for the court because of her brainpower. She is there to fill a quota. Nothing more. Nothing less.

snerd
03-31-2012, 17:50
I believe that they actually start believing their own lies, they repeat them so much.

Ruble Noon
03-31-2012, 17:51
I thought she was a wise Latino?

Libtard.

coastal4974
03-31-2012, 17:58
She has to be smart, she was the editor of the Yale Law review, just like the little Nazi.

The economic intelligence runs in party. Kagan thinks DemocratCare is all about the federal gubmint “giving a boat load of money to the states”. She doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about. Free healthcare for all woohoo (idiot)!!

rgregoryb
03-31-2012, 20:14
somehow, I'm not shocked.

Cavalry Doc
04-01-2012, 08:17
I thought she said she was "wise"?

Kingarthurhk
04-01-2012, 08:19
Isn't she the "Wise Latino Woman" by self-promotion?

certifiedfunds
04-01-2012, 08:20
I guess I'm a wise latino woman too, then.

DonGlock26
04-01-2012, 08:23
I thought she was a wise Latino?

Wow, what an uninformed, lazy idiot.

_

creaky
04-01-2012, 08:26
Her ignorance is not shocking. She was not picked for the court because of her brainpower. She is there to fill a quota. Nothing more. Nothing less.

100% correct.

engineer151515
04-01-2012, 08:29
The Liberal elite . . . shocking unaware yet dictating like kings and queens over the unwashed masses.


Yet they must have a feeling of accomplishment that they have 2, certain, insider "plants" for carrying forward Obamacare.

Is there any possible justification for Justice Kagan not recusing herself from this case from the very start? Any at all???

The US Supreme Court stands to ruin their credibility to the levels of the Nobel committee, if they haven't already.

Paul7
04-01-2012, 09:13
Wow, what an uninformed, lazy idiot.

_

Doesn't bother the left, as long as she votes the party line. She shouldn't even be allowed to be on this case. Yet according to some here, it doesn't matter whether you vote for Obama or Romney.

evlbruce
04-01-2012, 09:29
Doesn't bother the left, as long as she votes the party line. She shouldn't even be allowed to be on this case. Yet according to some here, it doesn't matter whether you vote for Obama or Romney.

Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters (75%) of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents – including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights.

Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats.

Mathematically speaking, you'd get more Republican judges in the next eight years by re-electing 0 and replacing him with a Republican president who appoints just above half their justices from their own party.

maxsnafu
04-01-2012, 10:34
Doesn't bother the left, as long as she votes the party line.

You're absolutely correct. She could be a drooling cretin. As long as she votes with Ginsburg she's OK as far as the Left is concerned.

Kingarthurhk
04-01-2012, 10:38
I guess I'm a wise latino woman too, then.

Well, I doubt you would do a worse job than Sotomayor.

coastal4974
04-01-2012, 10:40
We might be able to tell how the vote went by watching the Obama. I’m sure his plant told him everything that went on complete with names and dates.

maxsnafu
04-01-2012, 11:04
So What ? .... She's got a job for life ........:upeyes:

.

...a MAJOR flaw in the Constitution. And lets not forget the Republican senators who helped put this savant on the court:
Susan Collins & Olympia Snowe (no surprise there); Judd Gregg; George Voinovich; Mel Martinez; the ever reliable Richard Lugar (is this guy really a Republican? Really?); Christopher Bond; Lamar(!) Alexander; and every Democrat's favorite Republican, Lindsey Graham.

With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?

Guss
04-01-2012, 11:28
I thought she was a wise Latino?


OK, let's talk about who is wise.
Were you wise enough to look up the full context of what was being discussed, or did you just take the distorted word of a random blogger on the Internet who lifted it out of context?

Atomic Punk
04-01-2012, 11:40
even the illegal aliens in this country know better than that.

Bren
04-01-2012, 11:45
Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters (75%) of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents – including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights.

Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats.

Mathematically speaking, you'd get more Republican judges in the next eight years by re-electing 0 and replacing him with a Republican president who appoints just above half their justices from their own party.

Things like that make Romney a candidate who can beat Obama. When the only choices you can make are between the lesser evil and the greater evil, a rational person chooses the lesser, even if it's only a little less.

Only an irrational person or a coward chooses the greater - the coward usually chooses the greater by telling himself he is choosing neither.

cowboywannabe
04-01-2012, 11:49
sotomayor showing her stupidity? come on man, that was a gimme.:rofl:

Guss
04-01-2012, 11:51
sotomayor showing her stupidity? come on man, that was a gimme.:rofl:
Have you read it before it was taken out of context?

evlbruce
04-01-2012, 11:52
Things like that make Romney a candidate who can beat Obama. When the only choices you can make are between the lesser evil and the greater evil, a rational person chooses the lesser, even if it's only a little less.

Only an irrational person or a coward chooses the greater - the coward usually chooses the greater by telling himself he is choosing neither.

I believe that over eight years Mittens will do greater evil than President 0 will in do in his four. Sitting this election out is for me the lesser evil.

snerd
04-01-2012, 11:54
OK, let's talk about who is wise.
Were you wise enough to look up the full context of what was being discussed, or did you just take the distorted word of a random blogger on the Internet who lifted it out of context?
I'm sure you are a wise and knowing sage. Therefore, you would have seen the link in the snippet to the original article. Then surely you would have clicked on it and read the original article. After doing that, you would surely have realized that, in context or out of context, what she said was a lie. Right?

So, I'm going to have to go with the premise that you're just ticked off that so many of us see the truth that is as plain as the nose on your face. I understand your frustration though....... it has to be very hard to keep defending your leaders as they systematically destroy America as we know it.

Guss
04-01-2012, 11:56
I'm sure you are a wise and knowing sage. Therefore, you would have seen the link in the snippet to the original article. Then surely you would have clicked on it and read the original article. After doing that, you would surely have realized that, in context or out of context, what she said was a lie. Right?

So, I'm going to have to go with the premise that you're just ticked off that so many of us see the truth that is as plain as the nose on your face. I understand your frustration though....... it has to be very hard to keep defending your leaders as they systematically destroy America as we know it.
I read the Supreme Court transcript and am aware of the full context. I'm just going to sit back now and watch how many more people display their ignorance.

cowboywannabe
04-01-2012, 12:07
Have you read it before it was taken out of context?

her "wise latina" joke started the ball rolling.....

snerd
04-01-2012, 12:08
I read the Supreme Court transcript and am aware of the full context. I'm just going to sit back now and watch how many more people display their ignorance.
So, it wasn't a lie?

Guss
04-01-2012, 12:10
So, it wasn't a lie?
It was posed as a question to an attorney who was aware of the preceding dialog.

cowboywannabe
04-01-2012, 12:13
It was posed as a question to an attorney who was aware of the preceding dialog.

arent questions asked by those whom do not know the answers?

snerd
04-01-2012, 12:29
It was posed as a question to an attorney who was aware of the preceding dialog.
Well, by all means then, post up the preceding dialog and set us all straight.

snerd
04-01-2012, 12:38
:popcorn:

snerd
04-01-2012, 12:39
[Here is] Justice Elena Kagan in this exchange with Paul D. Clement, a lawyer arguing against Obamacare. They are debating whether the authority the federal government is assuming is coercive. Kagan thinks that it is not, because the federal government is giving states "a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's healthcare" (her words).

Clement insists that this money comes laden with coercive conditions, so Kagan presents this hypothetical:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Now, suppose I'm an employer, and I see somebody I really like, and I want to hire that person. And I say, I'm going to give you $10 million a year to come work for me. And the person says, well, I--you know, I've never been offered anywhere approaching $10 million a year. Of course, I'm going to say yes to that. Now we would both be agreed that that's not coercive, right?

MR. CLEMENT: Well, I guess I would want to know where the money came from. And if the money came from--

JUSTICE KAGAN: Wow. Wow. I'm offering you $10 million a year to come work for me, and you are saying that this is anything but a great choice?

MR. CLEMENT: Sure, if I told you, actually, it came from my own bank account. And that's what's really going on here, in part.
[snip]

Law professor Ann Althouse wonders (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/03/time-shifted-live-blogging-of-this.html), "Has a Supreme Court [justice] ever said "Wow. Wow" before?"
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/capitol_follies.html#ixzz1qocFT3NC
.......

Guss
04-01-2012, 12:59
arent questions asked by those whom do not know the answers?
In law school they teach you to be careful about asking questions that you do not already have the answer for. It's the way they play their games.

Guss
04-01-2012, 13:01
Well, by all means then, post up the preceding dialog and set us all straight.
Not just yet. But if you are in a hurry, go to the source.

I just want to sit back and see how many people fall for the cut-and-paste pundits rather than doing their own research.

snerd
04-01-2012, 13:29
Anyone can go to the source. Most of us have. You're not getting it. The source shows that she said it too. How much of the preceding "context" do you need to prove she didn't tell a lie about people being turned away from emergency rooms? Is this enough..............


MR. CARVIN: Judge Sutton is wrong in each
and every example. There was no -- there was no
compulsion in Raich for him to buy wheat. He could have
gotten wheat substitutes or he could have not sold
wheat, which is actually what he was doing. There is a
huge difference between conditioning regulation, i.e.,
conditioning access to the health care market and saying
you must buy a product, and forcing you to buy a
product. And that, that -- I'm sorry.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: I thought it was common
ground that the requirement that the insurers -- what
was it, the community-based one and they have to insure
you despite your health status; they can't refuse
because of preexisting conditions. The government tells
us and the Congress determined that those two won't work
unless you have a pool that will include the people who
are now healthy. But so -- well, first, do you agree
with your colleague that the community-based -- and
what's the name that they give to the other?

MR. CARVIN: The guaranteed-issue.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes. That that is
legitimate Commerce Clause legislation?

MR. CARVIN: Oh, sure. And that's why -*
but we don't in any way impede that sort of regulation.
These nondiscrimination regulations will apply to every
insurance company just as Congress intended whether or
not we buy insurance.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Well then, what about the
determination that they can't possibly work if people
don't have to buy insurance until they are -- their
health status is such that the insurance company just
dealt with them on its -- as it will? They'd say, I
won't insure you because you're -- you're already sick.

MR. CARVIN: It depends what you mean by
"work." It'll work just fine in ensuring that no sick
people are discriminated against. What -- what -- but
when you do that -- Congress -*

JUSTICE GINSBURG: But the sick people, why
would they insure early if they had to be protected if
they get insurance late?

MR. CARVIN: Yes. Well, that's -- see, this
is the government's very illogical argument. They seem
to be saying, look, we couldn't just force people to buy
insurance to lower health insurance premiums. That
would be no good. But we can do it because we've
created the problem. We, Congress, have driven up the
health insurance premiums, and since we've created that
problem, this somehow gives us authority that we
wouldn't otherwise have. That can't possibly be right.
That would -*

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Do you think that
there's -- what percentage of the American people who
took their son or daughter to an emergency room and that
child was turned away because the parent didn't have
insurance -- do you think there's a large percentage of
the American population who would stand for the death of
that child -*

snerd
04-01-2012, 13:36
Under their plan, everyone is insured and would not be turned away. Under present law, you can't be turned away for a lack of ability to pay. So what does her false statement/question have to do with anything, except an emotional, partisan cheap shot?

cowboywannabe
04-01-2012, 13:46
Under their plan, everyone is insured and would not be turned away. Under present law, you can't be turned away for a lack of ability to pay. So what does her false statement/question have to do with anything, except an emotional, partisan cheap shot?

you wont get an answer to this specific question.

Guss
04-01-2012, 13:59
Under their plan, everyone is insured and would not be turned away. Under present law, you can't be turned away for a lack of ability to pay. So what does her false statement/question have to do with anything, except an emotional, partisan cheap shot?
My gosh, you can read it and still miss it!
There had been an extended discussion of what the NEW law might bring. There was a lack of clarity on whether hospitals would still be required to tend to poor people under the FUTURE implementation of the law. Sotomayor was simply asking what percent of the American people would put up with it if poor people were to be denied. So she was NOT speaking of the CURRENT state of the law, but rather how the poor might be affected after the NEW law goes into effect.

Guss
04-01-2012, 14:00
you wont get an answer to this specific question.
Answer delivered.

cowboywannabe
04-01-2012, 14:08
Answer delivered.

maybe i read something different than sotomayor, but i did not find anything which would change the emergency care regardless of ability to pay part from either side.

why would the wise latina ask a question about a situation that can not happen under current law or proposed law?

again, maybe shes reading something else.

Guss
04-01-2012, 14:16
maybe i read something different than sotomayor, but i did not find anything which would change the emergency care regardless of ability to pay part from either side.

why would the wise latina ask a question about a situation that can not happen under current law or proposed law?

again, maybe shes reading something else.
I didn't see anyone on the court jumping to give her a solid answer.
I haven't read the full health care bill myself, and I doubt that you have. Asking questions about it is a legitimate activity of the court, and Sotomayor should not be put down for doing so. At least someone is looking after the poor.

Ruble Noon
04-01-2012, 14:17
maybe i read something different than sotomayor, but i did not find anything which would change the emergency care regardless of ability to pay part from either side.

why would the wise latina ask a question about a situation that can not happen under current law or proposed law?

again, maybe shes reading something else.

Because she is so wise that she thinks of possibilities that aren't possible.

Ruble Noon
04-01-2012, 14:20
I didn't see anyone on the court jumping to give her a solid answer.
I haven't read the full health care bill myself, and I doubt that you have. Asking questions about it is a legitimate activity of the court, and Sotomayor should not be put down for doing so. At least someone is looking after the poor.

No, the question of this bill is whether mandating that people buy insurance is constitutional. As far as looking after the poor, they are getting more than their Fair share already.

snerd
04-01-2012, 15:57
My gosh, you can read it and still miss it!
There had been an extended discussion of what the NEW law might bring. There was a lack of clarity on whether hospitals would still be required to tend to poor people under the FUTURE implementation of the law. Sotomayor was simply asking what percent of the American people would put up with it if poor people were to be denied. So she was NOT speaking of the CURRENT state of the law, but rather how the poor might be affected after the NEW law goes into effect.
Color me stupid, but the poor are taken care of now. The poor would be taken care of under Pelosi's obamacare, no if's and's or but's. We all know that. Are you, or was she, suggesting that any new healthcare plan will dump the poor on the street with no help? That's absurd, as was her hypothetical scenario. The liberal progressives and most of the rino's will never let that happen.

Her question was only meant to demean those mean conservatives. You know it and I know it and everyone else knows it.

Guss
04-01-2012, 17:37
Color me stupid, but the poor are taken care of now. The poor would be taken care of under Pelosi's obamacare, no if's and's or but's. We all know that. Are you, or was she, suggesting that any new healthcare plan will dump the poor on the street with no help? That's absurd, as was her hypothetical scenario. The liberal progressives and most of the rino's will never let that happen.

Her question was only meant to demean those mean conservatives. You know it and I know it and everyone else knows it.
Her question was put to a lawyer who was of the opinion that the only proper way for government to handle the poor who hadn't paid their insurance was to bill them when they got to the emergency room. I don't think she was buying the argument.

certifiedfunds
04-01-2012, 19:34
Her question was put to a lawyer who was of the opinion that the only proper way for government to handle the poor who hadn't paid their insurance was to bill them when they got to the emergency room. I don't think she was buying the argument.

That's because she's a wise latina woman.

As opposed to the other kind of woman.

Maxx702
04-01-2012, 20:39
If this ****ing idiot is a wise latina, it doesn't say much for the other latinas.

Cavalry Doc
04-02-2012, 05:38
Because she is so wise that she thinks of possibilities that aren't possible.

:rofl::rofl:

QNman
04-02-2012, 06:00
My gosh, you can read it and still miss it!
There had been an extended discussion of what the NEW law might bring. There was a lack of clarity on whether hospitals would still be required to tend to poor people under the FUTURE implementation of the law. Sotomayor was simply asking what percent of the American people would put up with it if poor people were to be denied. So she was NOT speaking of the CURRENT state of the law, but rather how the poor might be affected after the NEW law goes into effect.

Your blind support of this idiot premise is truly sad. Nowhere in the conversation; nowhere in the current insurance situation; and nowhere in the healthcare legislation is there any provision for kicking sick children to the curb. Nor was that the topic of conversation when this wise Latina threw this little stink-bomb onto the floor.

Stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.

mj9mm
04-02-2012, 06:31
I bet she'll come out as a hero here, the shocking truth is that much of the country will believe her. After all, the healthcare system is run by evil racist and greedy Republicans:rofl:.

Agonizer
04-02-2012, 09:01
Have you read it before it was taken out of context?


1200feather, Is that really you?

How much does Media Matters pay you?




.

Guss
04-02-2012, 10:36
Your blind support of this idiot premise is truly sad. Nowhere in the conversation; nowhere in the current insurance situation; and nowhere in the healthcare legislation is there any provision for kicking sick children to the curb. Nor was that the topic of conversation when this wise Latina threw this little stink-bomb onto the floor.

Stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.
Page 100, line 10
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Tuesday.pdf

G29Reload
04-02-2012, 11:17
The only respect I have for the SCOTUS is for Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia…with an outside to Flipper. Even Breyer and God give me strength..Ginsburg are at least marginal jurists, though ideologues.

Soto and Kagan are political hacks and enough to make me lose respect for the Institution.

QNman
04-02-2012, 11:24
Page 100, line 10
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Tuesday.pdf

I've read a chunk of this leading and trailing the point in question. She could be addressing the proposal being argued by counsel, if he had in fact mentioned anything prior to he comments about not covering those without health insurance who walk into an ER.

But since this is settled legislation, and has been for decades now, I still think that position is a stretch. I'm not convinced she doesn't know better, but threw out this particular red herring just to attach an image of a child dying (when a simple shot may have saved them) to the plaintiffs case.

Please note, this is injecting politics into this case. Please also note Sotamayor is NOT supposed the be political. The question before her is not whether she thinks this is food or bad legislation, but whether or not it is Constitutional.

creaky
04-02-2012, 11:28
...a MAJOR flaw in the Constitution.

There's a FLAW in the Constitution??? But I thought it was perfect, engraved directly on the brains of the founders by the gods themselves!

Heretic.

Mrs. Tink
04-02-2012, 11:38
If this ****ing idiot is a wise latina, it doesn't say much for the other latinas.

:tongueout: :wavey:

snerd
04-02-2012, 12:01
No one would dare to impugn your upstanding credentials, my good Mrs. Tink.

snerd
04-02-2012, 12:02
Sonia Sotomayor: Clueless Fool or Demagogic Liar?
Sonia Sotomayor was chosen to sit on the Supreme Court, sharing essentially unlimited power over America with only eight other people, due to an impressive list of five qualifications:

1. She can be depended on to never let the Constitution get in the way of the hard left political agenda.

2. She is Hispanic.

3. She can be depended on to never let the Constitution get in the way of the hard left political agenda.

4. She is more or less female.

5. She can be depended on to never let the Constitution get in the way of the hard left political agenda.

With a resume like that, it would be unreasonable to expect her to have even the most basic knowledge about reality outside the little bubble of toxic lies liberal elitists live cocooned inside. Yet Jason Lee (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/justice_sonia_sotomayors_shocking_ignorance.html) gasps in amazement of how little she knows about the healthcare system she will vote to destroy........

http://moonbattery.com/?p=10029

series1811
04-02-2012, 12:58
Under their plan, everyone is insured and would not be turned away. Under present law, you can't be turned away for a lack of ability to pay. So what does her false statement/question have to do with anything, except an emotional, partisan cheap shot?

Of course that's all her false statement masquerading as a question was. She, like most federal judges, is partisan as hell. That's how they get to be federal judges.

QNman
04-02-2012, 14:04
There's a FLAW in the Constitution??? But I thought it was perfect, engraved directly on the brains of the founders by the gods themselves!

Heretic.

Your red herring notwithstanding, what does a flawed document have to do with this topic? Justice Sotomayor is not positioned to repair flaws in the COTUS, real or perceived. She is charged only with reviewing laws to determine whether or not they meet the Constitution. No more, no less.

muzzledown42
04-02-2012, 14:15
How do you know Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn't understand the child would not be turned away? The whole point of her question could well have been that, of course, patients needing immediate attention will get it but that we all have to pay for it if the patient has no insurance. This is the primary argument for the individual mandate - as a society, we have entered into an agreement whereby everyone needing emergency treatment gets it regardless of whether that person or family is insured. Given this agreement, it is only fair that people and families that can afford insurance have an obligation to get it so the rest of us who are responsible aren't stuck with the bill.

whoflungdo
04-02-2012, 14:19
How do you know Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn't understand the child would not be turned away? The whole point of her question could well have been that, of course, patients needing immediate attention will get it but that we all have to pay for it if the patient has no insurance. This is the primary argument for the individual mandate - as a society, we have entered into an agreement whereby everyone needing emergency treatment gets it regardless of whether that person or family is insured. Given this agreement, it is only fair that people and families that can afford insurance have an obligation to get it so the rest of us who are responsible aren't stuck with the bill.


Please tell me you used the sarcasm font and I missed it.

Mrs. Tink
04-02-2012, 14:47
No one would dare to impugn your upstanding credentials, my good Mrs. Tink.

Well aren't you swell. :eyelashes:

How do you know Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn't understand the child would not be turned away? The whole point of her question could well have been that, of course, patients needing immediate attention will get it but that we all have to pay for it if the patient has no insurance. This is the primary argument for the individual mandate - as a society, we have entered into an agreement whereby everyone needing emergency treatment gets it regardless of whether that person or family is insured. Given this agreement, it is only fair that people and families that can afford insurance have an obligation to get it so the rest of us who are responsible aren't stuck with the bill.

I would also ask for clarification on this statement. By "responsible," do you mean it in a positive sense where some of us actually do what we are supposed to do for ourselves and our families, and oh by the way really did not mean for our own insurance policies to be a backfill mechanism for those who fail to pay? Or do you mean "responsible" in a negative sense, i.e. we are responsible, or obligated, to pay the bill? Given your use of the word "obligation", I have a feeling I know which but I don't want to assume.

My obligation begins and ends with me and my family. I had nothing to do with the must-treat-all-comers practice we have at hospitals. Yes, we must treat all comers. But I doubt the intent was to let those people universally disappear without paying the bill, but that is what is happening, isn't it?

Before you say that I am paying for it anyway through my insurance, then that is another thing with which I have nothing to do. I buy it because I need it, not because I have an obligation to a phantom crowd of people who have sought, will seek or are currently seeking treatment at an emergency room.

QNman
04-02-2012, 20:16
Please tell me you used the sarcasm font and I missed it.

Yeah, I'm kinda hoping the same thing. Cuz if this thinking has made it to the gun forums, we are so incredibly ****ed.

QNman
04-02-2012, 20:19
My obligation begins and ends with me and my family. I had nothing to do with the must-treat-all-comers practice we have at hospitals. Yes, we must treat all comers. But I doubt the intent was to let those people universally disappear without paying the bill, but that is what is happening, isn't it?

Before you say that I am paying for it anyway through my insurance, then that is another thing with which I have nothing to do. I buy it because I need it, not because I have an obligation to a phantom crowd of people who have sought, will seek or are currently seeking treatment at an emergency room.

Preach on, sister! Damn skippy!

Multiple Arms
04-02-2012, 23:01
It may not be wise to tout your wisdom or ethnicity. :dunno:

holesinpaper
04-03-2012, 03:04
What a tard. Its against the law to turn people away from an ER.

Is she supposed to know or care about the law? Naw.