I’m going to be honest with you, I’m not satisfied by the world, and every Monday I have a headache that’s killing me from stupid family drama, but today will be the last you hear of my personal matters as I don’t think it’s very professional to bring family matters to a blog that I run for news and such. Let’s press forward though, Obama’s new bill has just been signed into office and let me show you what it means for the rest of us.

 

 

BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court upholds Obama health care plan

 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld President Obama’s health care law in a complex opinion that gives the president a major election-year victory.

The historic 5-4 decision will affect the way Americans receive and pay for their personal medical care.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced the decision that allows the law to go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans.

A majority of the justices said that the individual mandate — the requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine — is constitutional as a tax.

“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” wrote Roberts.

The court’s four liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined Roberts in the outcome.

Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Roberts — a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush — provided the key vote to preserve the landmark health care law, which figures to be a major issue in Obama’s re-election bid against Republican opponent Mitt Romney.

The government had argued that Congress had the authority to pass the individual mandate as part of its power to regulate interstate commerce; the court disagreed with that analysis, but preserved the mandate because the fine amounts to a tax that is within Congress’ constitutional taxing powers.

As lawyers examined the details of the various opinions, political analysts quickly predicted at least a short-term political boost for Obama.

Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said “you can hear the sigh of relief at the White House” over a big win for Obama.

“It allows the president’s signature achievement to stand,” Brown said. “Since politics is the ultimate zero-sum game, what’s good for Obama is bad for Gov. Mitt Romney.”

Brown also noted that the ruling allows Romney “to continue campaigning against the law and promising to repeal it.”

The Republican-controlled House have scheduled a vote July 11 for a full repeal of the health care law. It is a symbolic move that stands no chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled Senate. House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., acknowledged that the election will be a determining factor for the law’s fate and the GOP’s ability to overturn it. “It’s up to the American people in the next election and their representatives to determine the fate of this law.”

Other congressional Republicans vowed to step up efforts to repeal what they call “Obamacare,” should they win control of Congress in the November elections.
“The president’s health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire,” said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. “Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety.”

The law’s individual mandate had been the key question for the court.

Critics called the requirement an unconstitutional overreach by Congress and the Obama administration; supporters say it is necessary to finance the health care plan.

The decision showed once again that the high court isn’t shy about weighing in on major legislative issues and influencing the political balance of power. Since its 5-4 decision affirming George W. Bush’s election as president in December 2000, the justices have tackled issues of huge importance, ranging from affirmative action to campaign finance, with equal aplomb.

In this case, the decision will have an immediate and major impact on the nation’s health care system, the actions of both federal and state governments, the course of the November elections for president and Congress, and the reputation of the Supreme Court for decades to come.

While the individual mandate requiring most Americans to have health insurance remained 18 months away from implementation, many other provisions already have gone into effect, such as reductions in seniors’ prescription drug costs, help for children and some adults with pre-existing conditions, and allowing children up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ policies.

Now that the court has issued its verdict, look for these repercussions:

– Health care for millions of Americans will be affected — coverage for some, premiums for others. Doctors, hospitals, drug makers, insurers and employers large and small all will feel the impact.

– States — some of which have moved ahead with the health care overhaul while others have held back — now have decisions to make.

– Republicans and Democrats in Congress are likely to move in different directions, seeking to expand or restrict health care and its associated costs.

– The presidential race between Obama and Romney will be affected, especially by energizing the two parties’ bases. Obama’s health care law has proven increasingly unpopular among Americans in most polls.

The court decision represents “the beginning, not the end, of the big debate on health care reform,” said Bill McCollum, the former Florida attorney general who filed the first lawsuit on the day the law was signed 27 months ago.

Not since the court confirmed Bush’s election — before 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, Wall Street’s dive and Obama’s rise — has one case carried such sweeping implications for nearly every American.

Passed by Democrats along strictly partisan lines, the law is designed to extend health coverage to some 32 million uninsured people, ban insurers from discriminating against those with expensive ailments, and require nearly all Americans to buy insurance or pay penalties.

Its passage on March 23, 2010, marked the culmination of an effort by Democrats to overhaul the nation’s health care system that dates back to Harry Truman’s presidency. The most recent effort by President Bill Clinton in 1994, spearheaded at the time by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, fell victim to Republican opposition. Since then, lesser changes have been enacted, including creation of a separate Children’s Health Insurance Program in the states.

The new law was challenged in a Florida court the day it was passed, and several other lawsuits made their way through district and appellate courts. A majority, but not all, of those courts upheld the law.

The principal challengers were a coalition of 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business. Beyond them, more than 130 briefs in support or opposition — a modern record, surpassing two Supreme Court affirmative action cases in 2003 — were filed by organizations ranging from the seniors group AARP to the Young Invincibles, representing young adults.

During three days of dramatic oral arguments in March, attorneys for the plaintiffs, led by former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement, argued that the government never has required Americans to enter into commerce and warned that such a mandate could lead to more in the future. If this is allowed, they said, what couldn’t the government do?

The current solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, argued that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. The mandate would do that by regulating the financing of health care, which represents 18% of the nation’s economy. He argued that the mandate was required in order to carry out the changes in the insurance market, such as guaranteeing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

Yet even the government contended in court that if the mandate was struck down, it should take at least some of the most popular provisions with it. That would include guaranteed coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and limits on premiums for those with expensive ailments — changes the government said could not be paid for unless millions more people bought insurance.

The states and business group challenging the law argued that the mandate wasn’t “severable” at all — if it was struck down, the entire law should fall. During three days of oral arguments in late March, several of the court’s conservative justices appeared to agree with that argument.

In addition, the states argued that the expansion of Medicaid with initial 100% federal funding was “coercive,” by luring states into an offer they could not refuse. They said it also would pull other people into Medicaid who already qualify but have not enrolled and would require certain treatments, all at a cost states cannot afford.
About the only thing both sides agreed on was that an obscure 1867 law, the Anti-Injunction Act, should not prevent the justices from rendering their verdict before the entire law was in effect.

 

So there you have it folks, a new bill signed off by the supreme court. Congrats, US, this is gonna come bite your ass off someday. I’m not against Obama, but frankly this just isn’t very logical, but everyone seems to be cheering for the big word: H E A L T H C A R E.

While it is true this will affect many young Americans who are unable to afford health care, it doesn’t necessarily mean that big a change. Obama care hasn’t really changed, it’s just that the Supreme Court backs it; That’s the major news, nothing special.

 

And now for more news about loli-R4p3 from Japan.

 

Cops Drop Charges Against Lolicon Rape Teacher

Author: Artefact

 

Police have dropped rape charges against a lolicon teacher who admitted having his way with a 12-year-old schoolgirl in the back of his car, and have declined to explain why.

The 26-year-old Sendai middle-school teacher was arrested for the attempted rape of a 12-year-old girl from another school, whom he had met online using an unnamed social networking service, and then arranged to meet up with in the back of his car.

For reasons they declined to clarify police dropped the charges against him, despite him admitting them and helpfully telling them “I was interested in girls of elementary school age.”

However, police searches revealed he had induced her to send nude pictures of herself to his phone, which he transferred to his PC, so police did later charge him with “manufacturing” child pornography, which he also admitted.

The incident came to light after the girl’s mother became suspicious and noticed her daughter had been exchanging mails with him.

What actions, if any, the school took in response to all this are not clear.

Police have not been forthcoming about the circumstances of him meeting the girl, but one possible scenario is that she was consensually engaged in prostitution, and that as a 12-year-old police may have been forced to charge him with statutory rape, which for whatever reasons they declined to do.

The other more widely favoured possibility is simply that he was a teacher and therefore practically immune to prosecution…

 

Not to be a downer but Artefag is a dick for posting this kind of news so often on the Sank blog. IF anyone out there has a better place for me to post Nippon news, that isn’t this depressing, please drop me a line.

 

Sesame Street strip club to serve liquor

Council votes to overturn alcohol ordinance

Author: Jeff Weinsier

 

NORTH MIAMI, Fla. –

A proposed strip club in North Miami will be able to serve liquor with its lap dances.

Late Tuesday night, the North Miami City Council voted 3-2 to overturn an ordinance that prohibited selling alcohol in a club with full nudity.

The city of North Miami had prohibited full nudity and alcohol in the same establishment, and the owners of the proposed club asked the City Council to lift the ban.

The proposed adult entertainment facility would be North Miami’s first. It is planned adjacent to Channel 2, on Sesame Street, in North Miami’s industrial district.

There is no word on when the club would open.

 

This was pretty funny. Strip club on Sesame Street. Anyway, ANN has the uh comic rankings, this was yesterday by the way.

le link

 

One other thing though…

 

Kingdom Hearts 3D’s English Dream Eaters Trailer Streamed

posted on 2012-06-27 18:00 EDT

//

Latest in Kingdom Hearts franchise slated for N. America, Europe in July

Square Enix began streaming a 134-second English trailer on Wednesday for the Kingdom Hearts 3D [Dream Drop Distance]Nintendo 3DS game. The trailer highlights the different Dream Eaters featured in the game that can act as either allies or enemies. Square Enix previously streamed a trailer highlighting the game’s “flowmotion” system on Friday.

An English demo for the game is currently available to download at the Nintendo eShop. Square Enix will release the role-playing game on the Nintendo 3DS system in North America on July 31, after the European release on July 20. The game shipped in Japan on March 29.

 

So there you have it; And then there’s this…

 

Biglobe Poll: Most Anticipated Summer Anime OP/ED

posted on 2012-06-28 02:15 EDT

//


Last Thursday, the Japanese Internet service provider BIGLOBE posted survey results on the most anticipated opening and endings for the summer anime season. The ranking was not an official BIGLOBE survey, but a poll conducted by the user “umapaka” under BIGLOBE‘s Anime Ranking Maker system.

Among the 2,441 self-selected responses from users of BIGLOBE‘s Anime One portal site, these were the 45 choices

 

The list can be viewed on-site. That is the end of my news, have some horses while I sign off. Goodnight, everyone.