But surely (sorry I promised not to call you Shirley ever again) one Swallow does not a summer make?
Here we are again then, searching for the perfect system and flawless application. It doesn't exist. We will always find that any system will have its fair share of abusers. It exists in banker, politics, most boardrooms and social committees.

Why would any sane, rational person expect a healthcare system to be any different? We, the reasonable, must accept that we end up covering the cost of scroungers at both ends of the spectrum.

I pay to keep my teeth nice, other folk get you and I to pay for their dental. It is just how it is. Only when there are finally more scroungers than there are decent folk, contributors, not takers, will the house finally fall down.

We already know what that is like. We refer to the period as the Dark Ages.
Last edited:


Not sure about that Mark, I thought it was the Dark Ages because somebody stole the Venerable Bede's head torch and Biro.


I agree Mark. But for any system to have a prayer it must encourage or incentivize conscientiousness. For instance, I'm willing to pee in a cup every 6 months to prove I don't smoke in order to get a reduced premium. My BMI isn't bad because I take care of myself (and my wife's a damn good cook) and because of that I should pay less than the guy I just operated on who's 5'10" and 380lb at the age of 32.

We currently have a system that encourages abuse, discourages good health and good personal habits, relies on no personal responsibility and, now that we've federalized it, will bankrupt us in no time flat. When everyone sees "scroungers" getting a free ride it encourages them to stop pulling the wagon and become a "scrounger" themselves. Before you know it, there's no one pulling the wagon.
Obama's Constitutional Violations for 2013:

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.

2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

3. Delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements. The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurance companies started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare’s requirements. President Obama called a press conference last month to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans in 2014—despite Obamacare’s explicit language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.

4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation. Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”

6. Political profiling by the IRS. After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of this year.

7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.

8. Recess appointments. Last year, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In January, the D.C. Circuit held the NLRB appointments to be unconstitutional, which ruling White House spokesman Jay Carney said only applied to “one court, one case, one company.”

9. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses. Responding to complaints about the University of Montana’s handling of sexual assault claims, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urges a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

10. Mini-DREAM Act. Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, President Obama, contradicting his own previous statements claiming to lack authority, directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to the so-called Dreamers. The executive branch undoubtedly has discretion regarding enforcement priorities, but granting de facto green cards goes beyond a decision to defer deportation in certain cases.

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Look for more of the same in 2014 and beyond. I predict "executive orders" coming out of the woodwork. Our king isn't finished yet - that is unless the GOP takes over the senate and keeps the house...and even then he only may be finished. Even with a veto-proof absolute majority in both houses, Obama's "executive order" pen will always be at the ready.

If the Obama admin has proven nothing else it's proven two things: 1- 'the law' only applies to most of the rest of us, and, 2- govt needn't adhere to/follow anything the constitution says.

The Founders must be 'spinning'...

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Help me out here and excuse my ignorance of American law. I thought that the President could only use executive orders, if they were lawful and constitutional.
Is that correct?
If so Al's list suggests the President is breaking the law.
If I'm not correct then apparently you have a dictatorship, where the President can do as he likes?

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
I thought that the President could only use executive orders, if they were lawful and constitutional.

Yeeeeep...that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work alright.

And then there's the way it's actually worked for the last 5 years or so...

WHY congress (the house anyway...forget the lib senate) hasn't kept the Supreme Court busy 24/7 over the crap that's been going on is beyond me.

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
From Forbes, 01/28/2013

When It Comes To Abuse Of Presidential Power, Obama Is A Mere Piker

Republicans and conservatives have complained loudly lately that President Obama has been resorting to non-democratic and unconstitutional governance; imperiously ignoring the so-called “will of the people” by issuing a cascade of new executive orders. According to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Mr. Obama is acting “like a king” by issuing his recent executive orders on gun control. Conservative author and radio talk show host Mark Levin contends that Obama’s executive orders are “un-American” and even “fascistic.”
If so, then certain Republican presidents – including Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan – must be classified as even more monarchical, un-American and “fascistic” than Barack Obama.

The average for all twenty presidents is 44 per annum (p.a.), with Democrats averaging 59 p.a. and Republicans averaging 34 p.a. Harry Truman had the highest rate of decree issuance (113 p.a.), while Warren Harding had the lowest rate (just 2 p.a.). So far, Mr. Obama has averaged 37 executive orders p.a., which is below the long-term average of 44 p.a., and lower also than the rate of five GOP presidents – including Gerald Ford (84 p.a.), Dwight Eisenhower (60 p.a.), Richard Nixon (58 p.a.), Ronald Reagan (48 p.a.), and George H.W. Bush (41 p.a.).


Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Is there a graph that shows whose E.O.'s were CONSTITUTIONAL in purpose and effect? (That's a rhetorical question.)

A sincere Happy & Healthy New Year to you and yours, Jim.

('To ALL of 'yuz' for that matter!)
Last edited:

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
The other 129 must have all been issued in 2013, because Jim's post is through 2012and I'm sure his sources are flawless.;)

Do a search on the White House website and see what IT says. I'm sure everything there is absolute gospel.