# Individual mandate in trouble?



## Remodeling Maidiac (Mar 27, 2012)

Justice Kennedy has harsh questions for the govts lawyer.

Check out scotusblog 

Not looking good for uncle Sam.


----------



## Clementine (Mar 27, 2012)

I hope you're right.    They need to shoot this down and go back to the drawing board.    I know of no one who is against helping the truly needy in our country and we helped with their healthcare through Medicaid and many states have additional programs.    

It feels completely wrong having the government tell you that you have to buy something, at a higher price than you are now, or you will face fines and maybe jail.    Obama kept going back and forth on the mandate, saying it's a tax, it's not a tax........       He knows it's unconstitutional and he couldn't spin it to make it look otherwise.

If those liberal judges opt to set a precedent by effectively altering our constitution, kiss the country goodbye.   Once they hand power to government to make these kinds of changes in our foundation, it's all down hill.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

Justices signal possible trouble ahead for health insurance mandate - latimes.com


----------



## Decepticon (Mar 27, 2012)

Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?

You CONZ are just whistling past the graveyard on this one.


Tell me...what will you do if the court finds this constitutional?

Bitch about the LIBERAL BIAS on the Supreme Court?


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?
> 
> You CONZ are just whistling past the graveyard on this one.
> 
> ...



Tell me...what will you do if the court finds this unconstitutional?


----------



## grunt11b (Mar 27, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?
> 
> You CONZ are just whistling past the graveyard on this one.
> 
> ...



 Yes. But you would do the same thing if it is found unconstitutional so who really cares right?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?
> ...



Probably celebrate a little. That would hasten the march toward single payer. 

Republicans and the insurance lobby will have the most difficulty if the mandate is declared unconstitutional.

BTW.........the court is not acting within the limits placed on it by the USC if the rule on it either way. That ought to bother you nutters but it doesn't. Wonder why?


----------



## miami_thomas (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



Yea right. This health care bill is supposed to get us to single payor by killing employer based health care.


----------



## miami_thomas (Mar 27, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?
> 
> You CONZ are just whistling past the graveyard on this one.
> 
> ...



Try to figure out a way to move to a free country like Canada.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Mar 27, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?
> 
> You CONZ are just whistling past the graveyard on this one.
> 
> ...



The man that runs scotusblog is a liberal and a well regarded lawyer


----------



## kiwiman127 (Mar 27, 2012)

Clementine said:


> I hope you're right.    They need to shoot this down and go back to the drawing board.    I know of no one who is against helping the truly needy in our country and we helped with their healthcare through Medicaid and many states have additional programs.
> 
> It feels completely wrong having the government tell you that you have to buy something, at a higher price than you are now, or you will face fines and maybe jail.    Obama kept going back and forth on the mandate, saying it's a tax, it's not a tax........       He knows it's unconstitutional and he couldn't spin it to make it look otherwise.
> 
> If those liberal judges opt to set a precedent by effectively altering our constitution, kiss the country goodbye.   Once they hand power to government to make these kinds of changes in our foundation, it's all down hill.



You are right, the Supremes need to shoot Obamacare and it's mandates down and go back to the drawing board.

Single Payer anyone?

Why? _"The annual Milliman Medical Index (MMI) measures the total cost of healthcare for a typical family of four covered by a preferred provider plan (PPO). The 2011 MMI cost is $19,393, an increase of $1,319, or 7.3% over 2010. Even though the rate of increase is slowing from prior years, it has taken fewer than nine years for such costs to more than double. In 2002, the cost of healthcare for the typical family of four was $9,235."_
2011 Milliman Medical Index - Milliman Insight

_"A typical U.S. family got poorer during the past 10 years in the first decade-long income decline in at least a half-century, new federal data show.
Median household income fell 2.3% to $49,445 last year and has dropped 7% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, the Census Bureau said Tuesday. Income was the lowest since 1996."_
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-13/census-household-income/50383882/1

This trend can't continue where healthcare costs are running wild, while household income for the average family remains stagnant.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



Did you just say that if the SCOTUS rules for, or against Obamacare, they are acting outside their Constitutional authority?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Probably celebrate a little. That would hasten the march toward single payer.
> ...



He's referencing the Anti-Injunction Act, but it really doesn't apply here, particularly since the Obama Administration can't make up their mind as to whether the individual mandate is a tax or a penalty.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Justice Kennedy has harsh questions for the govts lawyer.
> 
> Check out scotusblog
> 
> Not looking good for uncle Sam.



I hate to quibble on points, but I think it looks excellent for Uncle Sam. Our nation wont be strapped with this Administrations unconstitutional laws.

At least, assuming these questions mean that they will throw out the mandate. Which isn't necessarily true.

Personally, I dont know how you can use the government to compel someone into a contract. One of the first things you learn in law school about contracts is that coercion is a ground for invalidating any contract. If the law stands, I would argue that we have a significant flaw in our current legal system that can completely undermine the laws by which our economy is governed.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 27, 2012)

The early rumblings from the liberals quoted over at HuffPo are heartening.   

"Justices Displayed 'Deep Skepticism'"
"I Wasn't Worried Yesterday. I Am Today"
"Train Wreck For Obama"
"IT WILL BE CLOSE. VERY CLOSE"



I hate to get my hopes too high, but I'm allowing myself a smile.  ( :


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?
> 
> You CONZ are just whistling past the graveyard on this one.
> 
> ...



I hate to break this to you, but there are millions of people who trust the analysis of conservatives everyday. Most people don't make determinations on what they believe based solely on the political philosophy of who made it, but rather on whether it makes sense to their world view.

If the court finds this Constitutional, we will just continue to fight to have it repealed through the legsilative process or through by having this decision overturned in future court decisions. After all, the Supreme Court has made bad decisions before, e.g., Dread Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner, Griswold. All bad decisions, some of which have been overturned.

You think this is going to stop the fight? Nope. Fights just getting started if the Court declares it Constitutional. I know you don't like that we wont just give up, but sorry, our liberties are at stake.


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 27, 2012)

People who think that ACA is BAD for freedom, or that single payer will pass are sorely misled.

60% are against ACA, 30% want single payer.

Obama didn't want a mandate, figures people will just WANT affordable, guaranteed care.

Americans are 60% stupid, and FLASH, the rest of the world doesn't accept refugees without millions...

Dumbazz dupes.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



Yes. Do you think you have trapped me or something? The law was passed by duly elected representatives of the people and signed by the duly elected President of the United States. They shouldn't even be hearing the case.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



All pointless points. The court took it and will likely kill it.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



It's not a matter of trapping you. Don't be so sensitive. I was asking so I understood what you were saying, and so you would not whine if I misinterpreted your comments.


----------



## Decepticon (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?
> ...



Trust the analysis of conservatives?
How did that work out for those who had to bail out wall street?
Or pay for finding out there were no Iraq WMD's?  What about Cheney's "dead enders"?
Like when one hired a HORSE SHOW JUDGE to run FEMA?
How about 7 years of war in Afghanistan?  Good analysis there?


----------



## Caroljo (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



It only passed because Obama manipulated Senator Stupak to vote for it when he was against it....ONLY because Obama PROMISED to remove the part that would force us to pay for abortions!  THEN after it was all passed and signed, Obama never fulfilled his promise.  Surprise! Surprise!  This thing was shoved down our throats, the majority of people screamed that we did not want this.  Hell, we didn't even know what was IN IT! Do you always vote for something not even knowing anything about it?  Then you're just as stupid.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



Sensitive my ass.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Caroljo said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



Where do you come up with this shit?


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



yup... sensitive.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?
> ...



Blame George W Bush.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Yes. Do you think you have trapped me or something? The law was passed by duly elected representatives of the people and signed by the duly elected President of the United States. They shouldn't even be hearing the case.



That's the stupidest reasoning I've ever heard in my life.  Apparently, you haven't the slightest clue what federal court system is for.  Idiot.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 27, 2012)

francoHFW said:


> 60% are against ACA, 30% want single payer.



The first figure includes the second. That is to say, those who want single payer are also against the ACA. Those who are against the ACA and DON'T want single payer are only 30%.

Opposition to single payer includes those who support the ACA (40%) as well as those who are against it from the right (30%). If the ACA is struck down, and/or proves what a piece of shit it is, the number of people supporting it will decline, while those who support single payer will increase.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Where do you come up with this shit?



Look whose talking.  I can't believe you would even ask that after your retarded ass comment from earlier.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. Do you think you have trapped me or something? The law was passed by duly elected representatives of the people and signed by the duly elected President of the United States. They shouldn't even be hearing the case.
> ...



Really? The stupidest reasoning you've ever heard in your life? Whoa!

Is the federal court system for overturning the will of the people?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 27, 2012)

Dragon said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > 60% are against ACA, 30% want single payer.
> ...



There is zero chance single payer will happen in the U.S. any time in the near future and it would be unconstitutional anyway.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Ever hear of Marbury v Madison?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



When the will of the people calls for something against the Constitution, yes, it is.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



the majority 'of the people' were and are against Obamacare.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 27, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> There is zero chance single payer will happen in the U.S. any time in the near future and it would be unconstitutional anyway.



Single payer already exists in the United States. It's just restricted to old people. We call it Medicare. It's a very popular program. If it were extended to everyone, that would be a very popular program, too.

And clearly it is NOT unconstitutional. If it were, Medicare would have been struck down by now.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



If the will of the people is unconstitutional, then yes dumb ass, that's exactly what they're for.  It doesn't matter if a piece of legislation was passed by a duly elected Congress and signed by the president.  It doesn't matter even if most people like it.  They still have to follow the law when writing their legislation.  If it violates the Constitution it's illegitimate.  PERIOD.  You don't really don't know that?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> the majority 'of the people' were and are against Obamacare.



True, but 1) irrelevant to his question, and 2) misleading. The correct answer is that the court IS supposed to strike down popular laws that are unconstitutional. If the people want the law badly enough, they can amend the Constitution to allow it.

It's misleading in that people who say this are lumping together those who dislike the ACA from the right (and don't want universal health care coverage) and those who dislike it from the left (and want a single payer system). That's completely improper.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 27, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Single payer already exists in the United States. It's just restricted to old people. We call it Medicare. It's a very popular program. If it were extended to everyone, that would be a very popular program, too.



And it's going bankrupt and many doctors no longer accept it because it underpays them, which is one of the reasons why the cost of health care is going up, by the way.



> And clearly it is NOT unconstitutional. If it were, Medicare would have been struck down by now.



Has it been challenged?


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2012)

People should really put down their prediction rods. Getting asked tough questions in oral argument doesn't mean the judge is going to rule against you.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

DTMB,

Here ya go...............learn something. Because something is does not mean that it should be.

John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and Judicial Review


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?
> ...



Redouble my efforts to make sure Obama is reelected in case a member of the conservative wing of the court resigns/dies.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > the majority 'of the people' were and are against Obamacare.
> ...


I was simply explaining to him that Obamacare was not 'the will of the people'.


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Why would single payer be unconstitutional? Note, we already have a single-payer system for senior citizens.


----------



## Avorysuds (Mar 27, 2012)

I see the US falling apart. Just look at the debate, it's not a debate, it's borderline war.

I don&#8217;t wear some tin foil hat by thinking there are some elite out there that want to rule over everyone and do so in a secret room. I honestly think people like Bush and Obama re so entirely stupid and power hungry they just do evil as force of habit. The FF created the constitution to stop the Government from being exactly what it has become. 

There was no rule that because of the constitution people freedoms were safe from power hungry leaders, you have to fight for it to protect it. Freedom is the hardest thing to fight for because freedom offers no entitlements, you are fighting for a life to make or break yourself while the true evil in this country and world offers gifts at the expense of your freedoms. 

Both Dems and Reps elected to office on both sides have done this, it&#8217;s near sickening watching both sides blame each other as if the other is solely responsible. Bush and his Reps grew Government in every direction just as Obama and his Dem congress have done. There is no repeal, there is no small Government limited by the constitution. We have illegal wars across the board just as we have illegal entitlement programs bogging this country down with debt that will never be paid down.  

One side claims the War powers act is a declaration of war despite nothing about it is constitutional while the other side claims the General welfare clause gives them right to spend on anything and everything. Never repealing, always expanding upon the other side&#8217;s once condemned actions. Did Bush end the DoE, Governments involvement in HC, foreign aid, welfare and Government&#8217;s spending and involvement in the economy? No&#8230; Did Obama repeal homeland security, end Iraq, Afghanistan and end Bush era tax cuts? No&#8230;All of these things are still in place and most have been expanded upon. Everything but Iraq I should say, Obama was kicked out when he tried to push past Bush&#8217;s timetable.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

It was passed in the manner outlined in the constitution. Therefore, it is the will of the people.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Polk said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



It would not be. That statement was made without thinking.


----------



## Caroljo (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...




First here.....
Stupak to Vote Yes on Health Care Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Then this....
President Obama Signs Pro-Abortion Health Care Bill, Ignores Executive Order | LifeNews.com

And this.....

"Unlike yesterdays bill-signing celebrations in the East Room and the Department of the Interior, the president will sign this executive action behind closed doors, with nary a camera present. No reporters allowed. No member of the media permitted to attend to record the moment for history."
Away from the Cameras, President Obama to Sign Executive Order on Abortion - ABC News

Did he REALLY sign it?  Who knows!!!!!!?????????


----------



## Dragon (Mar 27, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> And it's [Medicare] going bankrupt and many doctors no longer accept it because it underpays them,



Both of which would be solved if Medicare was expanded to cover everyone. That would give it the leverage to hold down health-care prices, and make it so that physicians would not have the option of refusing to accept it.



> which is one of the reasons why the cost of health care is going up, by the way.



No, it's not.



> Has it been challenged?



Good question. Obviously not successfully, but lemme do a quick search:

Yes, apparently there have been court challenges involving Medicare. Here's one recent example.

Court says Medicare beneficiaries are stuck with government program - The Hill's Healthwatch


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2012)

Caroljo said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Caroljo said:
> ...



Anyone who understands how executive orders work knows he signed it. They aren't secret documents. They're published in the Federal Register.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Mar 27, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?
> 
> You CONZ are just whistling past the graveyard on this one.
> 
> ...


Better then trusting narratives from the idiot lefties.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Have some free time? 

http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/Waldroncore.pdf


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > And it's [Medicare] going bankrupt and many doctors no longer accept it because it underpays them,
> ...



That goes to show why a constitutional challenge to Medicare would likely fail. The author of that opinion, Kavanaugh, is one of the most conservative jurists in the country.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> It was passed in the manner outlined in the constitution. Therefore, it is the will of the people.



That is quite possibly the dumbest comment I have ever seen on this board.

If 99.999% of the voters signed a petition against a particular bill in Congress, but Congress passed it and the President signed it, THAT is still the 'will of the people', even though 99.999% of 'the people' were against it?

You are a fucking loon.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



As are most of yours.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> DTMB,
> 
> Here ya go...............learn something. Because something is does not mean that it should be.
> 
> John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and Judicial Review



Just shut the fuck up and stop embarrassing yourself.  Seriously.  Nothing is more pathetic than someone too stupid to realize it.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 27, 2012)

Polk said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



Not really since any senior can get a private supplemental policy.  Portions of it are single payer but there is certainly a provision for additional insurance taking it out of a mandated single payer only system.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

And...........for those who would like a simpler discussion:

Supreme Court & Judicial Review


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Okay, but that would also be the case if we passed a universal single-payer system. You'd still be able to buy insurance for things the single-payer insurance does not cover.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

AmericanFirst said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?
> ...



*THAN*

Idiot.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> It was passed in the manner outlined in the constitution. Therefore, it is the will of the people.





It was passed by 'reconciliation' because the will of the people was so crystallized against it that Massachusetts did the unimaginable and sent a Republican to the senate to help defeat it.  

But the will of the people be damned.  Obama and Pelosi knew what was best for us.  If we were smart enough we would be able to understand how wonderful it was for them to pass that in spite of the groundswell against it.  All we needed was time, and we would figure out how great it all was.  

But the time Obama was willing to give us to realize that he was doing the right thing of course had to happen after the passage of the bill and before a realistic assessment of the costs.  

Will of the people.  lol


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 27, 2012)

It pretty much looks like this is going down.  Mostly because the precedent is too dangerous.  Once the government can mandate an individual pay for something the government wants, the sky is the limit.   The question about mandating cell phones was a particularly interesting and observant one.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > DTMB,
> ...



Lesson Plans: Grades 9-12


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 27, 2012)

Polk said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



The terms universal and single payer escapes you.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 27, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > And it's [Medicare] going bankrupt and many doctors no longer accept it because it underpays them,
> ...


Yeah, great idea, brainiac.  Then bring on the rationing because we'll have less people becoming doctors.



> > which is one of the reasons why the cost of health care is going up, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.



Uh... yeah, IT IS!



> > Has it been challenged?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That lawsuit did not challenge the Constitutionality of the program, therefore it is irrelevant.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > DTMB,
> ...



I am still waiting for you to impress me with your knowledge of how the USC gave the Supreme Court the right to even hear this case? Whassamatta? Constitution not working for you today?


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



I understand it perfectly well. Why is a single-payer system for senior citizens constitutional, but a single-payer system for all citizens not?


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

CommieCare, and by extension, Obama's re-election, is toast!


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> It pretty much looks like this is going down.  Mostly because the precedent is too dangerous.  Once the government can mandate an individual pay for something the government wants, the sky is the limit.   The question about mandating cell phones was a particularly interesting and observant one.




The Government lawyer said that was 'different.'    Except, he could not explain why.


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It pretty much looks like this is going down.  Mostly because the precedent is too dangerous.  Once the government can mandate an individual pay for something the government wants, the sky is the limit.   The question about mandating cell phones was a particularly interesting and observant one.
> ...



He quite easily explained why: because it is impossible to escape the market for health care. Saying you can "opt out" of health care makes as much sense as saying you can "opt out" of dying.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It pretty much looks like this is going down.  Mostly because the precedent is too dangerous.  Once the government can mandate an individual pay for something the government wants, the sky is the limit.   The question about mandating cell phones was a particularly interesting and observant one.
> ...


Several times.  He was not allowed to get away with it either.
"But that's _different_" is the usual liberal response to their own standards applied against them.


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2012)

Polk said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



So why not mandate burial insurance? We're all going to die.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2012)

Polk said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


As with any numbe of other things, which were brought up.
"But but but..  that's _different_"



> Saying you can "opt out" of health care makes as much sense as saying you can "opt out" of dying.


Interesting that you mention that, given that the idea of requiring burial insurance was brought up.  
"But but but..  that's _different_"


----------



## Valerie (Mar 27, 2012)

Annie said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > SniperFire said:
> ...




So funny you should say that!  When I was listening to some of the rationale, I had that very same thought...


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

Clementine said:


> I hope you're right. They need to shoot this down and go back to the drawing board. I know of no one who is against helping the truly needy in our country and we helped with their healthcare through Medicaid and many states have additional programs.
> 
> It feels completely wrong having the government tell you that you have to buy something, at a higher price than you are now, or you will face fines and maybe jail. Obama kept going back and forth on the mandate, saying it's a tax, it's not a tax........ He knows it's unconstitutional and he couldn't spin it to make it look otherwise.
> 
> If those liberal judges opt to set a precedent by effectively altering our constitution, kiss the country goodbye. Once they hand power to government to make these kinds of changes in our foundation, it's all down hill.


 
Indeed. as ObamaCare is written? It is all about nothing but an open door for total control over the private individual. IF the Individual mandate stands? Katy bar the Door. Precident is set, and Government can mandate anything they like.


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 27, 2012)

Kennedy said Health Care might be unique. duh. You people against this are totally deluded, ignorant, and duped. Also goes for single payer people. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, and Holland and Switz. are happy with their similar to ACA systems...

   If they say the mandate is  is no go, who needs it? LOL Obama doesn't need it...


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

francoHFW said:


> Kennedy said Health Care might be unique. duh. You people against this are totally deluded, ignorant, and duped. Also goes for single payer people. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, and Holland and Switz. are happy with their similar to ACA systems...
> 
> If they say the mandate is is no go, who needs it? LOL Obama doesn't need it...


 
IF the mandate goes? Then where's the funding going to come from? YOU DO know that they are counting on the individual mandate the fund it, right?

If the mandate is struck down? ObamaCare folds like a flimsy house of cards.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2012)

The T said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > I hope you're right. They need to shoot this down and go back to the drawing board. I know of no one who is against helping the truly needy in our country and we helped with their healthcare through Medicaid and many states have additional programs.
> ...


Unquestionably.
Everyone is in the transportation market, and their mode of transportation, whatever it is and how ofthen they may use it, affects the costs of everyone elses transportation.  Therefore, we're going to require that everyone buy an electric car.
Same-same.


----------



## Valerie (Mar 27, 2012)

Annie said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > SniperFire said:
> ...





How about food?  We all need food...  And shelter... We all need shelter............




> The Supreme Court's five conservative justices on Tuesday sharply challenged the Obama administration's arguments for the health-care law, with Justice Anthony Kennedy saying the government has a "very heavy burden of justification" for the measure's requirement that people carry health insurance or pay a penalty.
> 
> Conservative Justices Challenge Government Over Health Law - WSJ.com


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2012)

The T said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > I hope you're right. They need to shoot this down and go back to the drawing board. I know of no one who is against helping the truly needy in our country and we helped with their healthcare through Medicaid and many states have additional programs.
> ...



I think the whole idea of 'health insurance' should be rewritten at it was over 40 years ago, to 'hospitalization' or 'catastrophic health insurance.' Stop the payouts and coverages on things people can afford, such as immunizations, sports and health physicals, eyeglasses, etc. Cover pregnancy and other expensive items. Hospital care in general and expensive out patient care like chemo or dialysis. 

The deductibles can pretty much cover what should be covered, say $1k.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2012)

Valerie said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...




JUSTICE ALITO: 
All right, suppose that you and I walked around downtown Washington at lunch hour and we found a couple of healthy young people and we stopped them and we said, "You know what you're doing?  You are financing your burial services right now because eventually you're going to die, and somebody is going to have to pay for it, and if you don't have burial insurance and you haven't saved money for it, you're going to shift the cost to somebody else." Isn't that a very artificial way of talking about what somebody is doing?

GENERAL VERRILLI: 
No, that -*

JUSTICE ALITO: 
And if that's true, why isn't it equally artificial to say that somebody who is doing absolutely nothing about health care is financing  health care services?

Resposnse:
"but but but...  thats _different_"


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

Annie said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...


 

Sounds resonable.


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

Valerie said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


 
See Food Stamps and HUD...that already happens.


----------



## mascale (Mar 27, 2012)

Citing several tort precedents--wherein individuals are not compelled to act--then Justice Kennedy questioned government's attorney about whether or not the obligation to purchase an instrument, payment mechanism, was some new government compelled obligation being created.

Government's attorney had opened with the contention that the Affordable Health Care Act was about a payment methodology.

Essentially, "In the Beginning, Insurance created all kinds of Health Care," and so "Insurance" became the issue of contention in the U. S. Supreme Court, 2nd Day deliberations of the Affordable Health Care Act.  Rushing into concepts of insurance, then reputationally Conservative justices questioned why payments should be made for services that will never be used, even in the context of services that get used.

Without so-stating, The position of the Administration, in Court, is firstly,  that unlike the wide-range of scattered payment forms--leaving many without payment ability, and putting providers at increase risk of being paid at all--then the minimum standards insurance requirement was more like a currency form, available for medical services.  Then secondly, the defacto market for the services is universal, lacking only the dejure fact of payment for services.  

Again, even a non-payer for services can now rush a payer for services to a provider, in a location, for treatment.  The non-payer, following along Justice Kennedy's example, doesn't have to do that.  The non-payer can do that, however, and be at peace of mind that at least there is the group of locations and providers already in place.  

The matter of paying for services is not raised as an issue.  The obligation is pre-existing.  Government's contention was even supported--in the transcript of proceedings--on the Conservative side of their bench.  This many are paying, that many cannot pay:  Was acknowledged.  

So Justice Kennedy's pivotal question can be reduced to the matter that there is already a defacto pre-existing obligation:  That providers do have a right to payment for services, which is not a new obligation under the Affordable Health Care Act.  The defacto sense of assurance that arises from groups of paid providers,  mostly just becomes a dejure payment plan for any services, which is all of sudden no longer just a virtual reality.  It becomes an affirmation of an obligation already in place, in which even a non-payer might rush a payer off to use.  

"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Blood of many warriors:  No longer left in laundry of many squaws--but is sent to hospital or clinic instead!)


----------



## Valerie (Mar 27, 2012)

The T said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...




Yes, as does Medicaid and Medicare...  


The analogy is toward the rationale about the "inescapable market"...


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2012)

mascale said:


> Citing several tort precedents--wherein individuals are not compelled to act--then Justice Kennedy questioned government's attorney about whether or not the obligation to purchase an instrument, payment mechanism, was some new government compelled obligation being created.
> 
> Government's attorney had opened with the contention that the Affordable Health Care Act was about a payment methodology.
> 
> ...



I can remember my folks talking about my dad's insurance changes back when I was a little kid. Seriously, maybe 5 or 6. My dad saying, "Mary, it's changing, you can take the kids to doctor for shots and physicals for nothing, other than the deductible." Prescripriitions weren't covered then. 

When my brother needed stitches, must have been about 6, it was covered. My mom was agog. That wasn't the norm back then. My dad had very good insurance. A precursor for what was to become the norm.

Truth is, they could have paid for the stitches, just like most can today. They did pay for the physicals and such. Prescriptions. Would they have paid $100 for a pill? Don't think so, nor would folks now. The market will meet the demand.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

That is bullshit


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Hello! What happened to DTMB and Conservative? Are they having an early supper? I am friggin' waiting for their cute reply to my idiotic and simplistic sources regarding the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.

As Sarah would say................WTF?


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Hello! What happened to DTMB and Conservative? Are they having an early supper? I am friggin' waiting for their cute reply to my idiotic and simplistic sources regarding the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
> 
> As Sarah would say................WTF?



And you want to whine about immature behavior from other posters? 

Get a life... most of us have them. You should try it. Might lighten you up a bit.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Hello! What happened to DTMB and Conservative? Are they having an early supper? I am friggin' waiting for their cute reply to my idiotic and simplistic sources regarding the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
> ...



The nutter playbook. Find out what makes the opposition tick........what they are really all about........then accuse them of exactly the opposite. 

Nicely done, nutter.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



yup... you really do take yourself much too seriously.


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

Valerie said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



And of course, if you happen to be driving down the road and get hurt in a car wreck, then you are going to need a cell phone to call 9-11.  Some will die instantly, but saying you can 'opt out ' of a car wreck makes no sense.  You will need to call 9-11, so the Federal government is going to have to mandate we all carry cell phones..      Perhaps smartphones with GPS.


----------



## Meister (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?
> ...



Ask for a recount?


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...


 
Start a petition to have those Justices that voted against it removed? I'm sure we could see another Wisconsin with the Unions leading the charge...


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Caroljo said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



It's called paying attention to facts. It's usually good to do that if you want any sort of informed opinion in this world.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



It's for overturning Unconstitutional laws. You would think anyone familiar with our system would know this.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



LoneMoron thinks that if a law makes it to the President and he signs it, it is automatically Constitutional and the 'will of the people'.


----------



## Peach (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



I think it'll be a close vote, but may be wrong.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Again:

Supreme Court & Judicial Review

Please. Learn your place.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Oh! How clever! LoneMoron! You might dispell the commonly held belief that nutters are unable to be funny. But, not with lame shit like that.

For you as well:

Supreme Court & Judicial Review


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



So someone is an idiot because he typed the wrong letter, but you aren't despite saying incredibly stupid things?


----------



## Annie (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



My tendency is to ask you why you think this a relevant site. Perhaps too tough a question? So tell me why you think an individual mandate is the answer.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

Polk said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Except, you can opt out of health care.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

To Annie..............I don't. See my first post in this thread. Then, have the decency to admit that you were wrong.

See you soon.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > SniperFire said:
> ...



The loving, caring, benevolent christian says it all.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

Annie said:


> I think the whole idea of 'health insurance' should be rewritten at it was over 40 years ago, to 'hospitalization' or 'catastrophic health insurance.' Stop the payouts and coverages on things people can afford, such as immunizations, sports and health physicals, eyeglasses, etc. Cover pregnancy and other expensive items. Hospital care in general and expensive out patient care like chemo or dialysis.
> 
> The deductibles can pretty much cover what should be covered, say $1k.



We could always also just get the government out of it and allow people to contract with insurance companies for coverge they want.


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

1)  I dont think Obamacare will survive
2)  That being said we need to reform health care
3)  Neither party will want to fix the broken system we have now. Why?  There's too much money to be made from sick people from the insurance companies.  Ill begotten money drives this system which serves only the rich.  We need class warfare here.
4)  Create an individual law stating insurance companies MUST accept people with pre-existing conditions.  If you do not accept that, you can NEVER say you are pro life.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> That is bullshit



Compelling argument as usual.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Then someone needs to tell the Court that they shouldnt have been striking down laws for the past 200+ years.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> To Annie..............I don't. See my first post in this thread. Then, have the decency to admit that you were wrong.
> 
> See you soon.



So you keep posting a site you dont think is relevant for the hell of it?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst said:
> ...



No. Someone is an idiot because they have not learned the difference between "than" and "then" *AND *have just called someone else ( a whole group of people, in fact ) an idiot.


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


 
Then that would assume that the Court gave it an assignment to decide what is and isn't Constitutional...

And they did in Maubury _Versus_ Madison.

Been a downhill slide ever since.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > To Annie..............I don't. See my first post in this thread. Then, have the decency to admit that you were wrong.
> ...



Are you OK?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > I think the whole idea of 'health insurance' should be rewritten at it was over 40 years ago, to 'hospitalization' or 'catastrophic health insurance.' Stop the payouts and coverages on things people can afford, such as immunizations, sports and health physicals, eyeglasses, etc. Cover pregnancy and other expensive items. Hospital care in general and expensive out patient care like chemo or dialysis.
> ...



Or....we could remove the profit motive from anything having to do with the health and wellness of our fellow humans........your god's children..........and place the burden for the health of our brothers and sisters on all of our shoulders.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



You really think you are forced to purchase healthcare? That you have no other choices?

In fact, there are Supreme Court cases stating that you can opt out of health care if you so choose. The rulings were made under the Due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

You seem to think that the loving thing is to force your viewpoints and solutions onto people. That's probably why you don't understand Christianity. The Gospel requires a willing heart and mind. You can't save people through the use of force. People have to make their own choices.


----------



## Liberty (Mar 27, 2012)

this case is a fucking slam dunk for the repeal...its so blatantly unconstitutional it makes me sad so much taxmoney is going into this court hearing. When it was passed the courts should have stopped it then...before the president signed it. Way to be asleep at the wheel, courts.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Im quite fine. Just mildly amused and curious about why certain posters on this board appear to be getting even dumber lately.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Or....we could remove the profit motive from anything having to do with the health and wellness of our fellow humans........your god's children..........and place the burden for the health of our brothers and sisters on all of our shoulders.



Slavery is unconstitutional. Sorry.


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

I all for it going down as long as we FORCE insurance companies to pick up the perons coverage if they do get sick.   Good if they make less profit.  This pre existing condition stuff?  Those who say no I hope for their downfall.  Pray for it.


----------



## Papageorgio (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Federal Court is for upholding the Constitution and interpreting law.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

Liberty said:


> this case is a fucking slam dunk for the repeal...its so blatantly unconstitutional it makes me sad so much taxmoney is going into this court hearing. When it was passed the courts should have stopped it then...before the president signed it. Way to be asleep at the wheel, courts.



Courts dont have the power to do that. It's outside their jurisdiction. They can't make a ruling unless a case or controversy is brought before them.


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Or....we could remove the profit motive from anything having to do with the health and wellness of our fellow humans........your god's children..........and place the burden for the health of our brothers and sisters on all of our shoulders.
> ...


 

But our Government is selling future generations into massive debt that they are gonna have to pay for.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



No.......I think the loving thing is to care for others. Period. 

You are looking for excuses to disregard others. Ayn Rand is your Jesus.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 27, 2012)

LOL I love it when ignorant people question something as obvious as judicial review. The Constitution doesn't say in plain language that even the logically challenged can follow and understand, "The Supreme Court may, when a case is brought before it, rule whether a law is constitutional or not," and because of this, the logically challenged assume no such power exists.

It does. It follows with perfect,unassailable logic from what the Constitution DOES say in plain language about the Court, which is:

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." (Article III, Section 1.)

What is "the judicial power"? It's the power to try cases and determine facts and law. What does this mean? It means that any case under federal law may be brought before the federal courts, and on appeal before the Supreme Court, which will decide the issue.

Now, suppose that a case is brought on appeal before the Supreme Court. The Court (from which there is no further appeal, except, in criminal cases, to the president for a pardon -- in civil cases no appeal, period) may say the following, after considering the facts and law of the case.

"We rule this way, on the grounds that the law in question conflicts with the Constitution and, the Constitution being the supreme law of the land, is null and void. If a similar case is brought before us in the future, we will rule the same way on the same basis. Although we have no authority to strike down the law in question as such, anyone affected by it may take the matter to court and, upon it reaching this Court on appeal, we will rule as if the law were null and void, so any action on the basis of the law would be a waste of time and energy."

That is the logical, inevitable outcome of the Court having "the judicial power." "Striking down a law as unconstitutional" is just shorthand.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

initforme said:


> I all for it going down as long as we FORCE insurance companies to pick up the perons coverage if they do get sick.   Good if they make less profit.  This pre existing condition stuff?  Those who say no I hope for their downfall.  Pray for it.



Why exactly is it good for people to make less profits? You think someone shouldnt be compensated for some work? You think drs should allow themselves and their families to starve instead of taking the money they earn?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> No.......I think the loving thing is to care for others. Period.
> 
> You are looking for excuses to disregard others. Ayn Rand is your Jesus.



So you care for others by violating their wishes? Creating shortages? Providing them with crappier care? Increasing their costs? Driving medical providers out of business? You care for people by stealing their money and forcing things to be done your way.

That's not loving. That's criminal.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Are doctors in japan starving? The argument is fucked up.


----------



## Ropey (Mar 27, 2012)

Polk said:


> People should really put down their prediction rods. Getting asked tough questions in oral argument doesn't mean the judge is going to rule against you.



I agree.  Of course this judge will ask deep questions from both sides of the divide. The mandate is far more important than the rest of Obama Care.  Of course it all falls down to forcing the public and if that mandate fails, then so does the Obama Care payment structure.  If there's no money to follow, there's no one following. 

If the mandate passes and Obama Care were to be repealed or not, this still allows for an individual mandate tied to commerce.


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > I all for it going down as long as we FORCE insurance companies to pick up the perons coverage if they do get sick. Good if they make less profit. This pre existing condition stuff? Those who say no I hope for their downfall. Pray for it.
> ...


 
They want Soviet-Style Government where you are assigned a job to do and you had better do it lest you and your family starve.

Statists fail in the free market, and fail in incentives save from forcing people to do under the point of a gun which is thier only incentive.

Everyone is the same in thier eyes...the_ idividual human_ doesn't exist in thier eyes.


----------



## Ernie S. (Mar 27, 2012)

Peach said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Yup it will be 5-4 unless Kagen grow some integrity, in which case it will be a not so close 5-3.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > No.......I think the loving thing is to care for others. Period.
> ...



Japan. Canada. Germany. France. Spain. The Netherlands. England. Australia. The lsit goes on. You are being lied to. Please learn.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 27, 2012)

Polk said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



There's no mandate.  There's no penalty for not taking medicare.   obamacare is the first time in history that the government intends to penalize inactivity.  That's why there were the questions about whether the government can mandate cell phones and burial insurance.    The government has just never taxed or penalized NOT doing something.


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

"Why exactly is it good for people to make less profits? You think someone shouldnt be compensated for some work? You think drs should allow themselves and their families to starve instead of taking the money they earn? "


Please justify denying coverage to pre existing conditions.   What are you going to do for those people?  Do you think they should simply be told sorry and go home and get sicker and die?   The system needs a complete overhaul, you cannot deny that.   Seems to me that nobody is willing to do this because god forbid some insurance company might not make as many billions.   I have said the gov't isnt going to fix it, but either is the free market.   What is the solution?  Where does it all end?  Answer?  Only the very wealthy can afford it.   Thats where its all headed.   But some people claim we have the best system in the world.  We know who they are.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 27, 2012)

Ropey said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > People should really put down their prediction rods. Getting asked tough questions in oral argument doesn't mean the judge is going to rule against you.
> ...



Inactivity does not come under the provisions of the commerce clause.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Are you sure about that?


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

"Everyone is the same in thier eyes...the idividual human doesn't exist in thier eyes. "

So what you are saying is that some simply should not have affordable health care?   They made decisions that now make health care unaffordable so it is their fault?   I'm not asking for the gov't to fix it.   The free market wont fix it either.  What is your solution to slash prices by more than 50 percent to make it affordable to those without insurance?


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



That is what the Justices said.  To tax or penalize inactivity fundamentally changes the relationship between the individual and the government.


----------



## Ernie S. (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...


While we're at it. maybe we should force carpenters and farmers to forgo their profit motives as well? What else do you think citizens should get free from the government? Cable? Internet? IPods? Condoms?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

Ropey said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > People should really put down their prediction rods. Getting asked tough questions in oral argument doesn't mean the judge is going to rule against you.
> ...



I dont know about that. There may be other things hidden in Obamacare that are more important than Obamacare. It is a large bill.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 27, 2012)

You can remove the profit motive but how will you force doctors and nurses to care for you or specialists to diagnose you, tell them how bad they are when they don't?


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


 
"But we have to PASS IT..._to find out what's in it..._"


----------



## Ernie S. (Mar 27, 2012)

initforme said:


> I all for it going down as long as we FORCE insurance companies to pick up the perons coverage if they do get sick.   Good if they make less profit.  This pre existing condition stuff?  Those who say no I hope for their downfall.  Pray for it.



Do you want your auto insurance to pay for preexisting dents too?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



So you think citing crappy systems with the very problems im pointing out proves your arguments?


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

"While we're at it. maybe we should force carpenters and farmers to forgo their profit motives as well? What else do you think citizens should get free from the government? Cable? Internet? IPods? Condoms? "

All people want is affordable health care.  Right now it aint affordable to those who work hard just to maintain.   That says alot about our country.  ALOT OF BAD.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Justice Kennedy has harsh questions for the govts lawyer.
> ...



Can't say I disagree with you; if they find it unconstitutional, it therefore is an unconstitutional law.  

Let me ask you this though:  Do you think it then becomes a political football for Obama?  I can see where some would think it becomes an albatross and I'm not sure that it doesn't.  Losing it though, may help him and the democrats politically since they had to go into such contortions to get it passed, I can see them arguing, "If we had more democrats in congress, we would have passed a better-suited bill."  Or some argument like that.


----------



## Ropey (Mar 27, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Activity sure does and what is inactive can become active. Just get a lawyer.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



GONZALES V. RAICH


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


 
Indeed. it's an attack on the private sector. On individuals.

Everyone is the same, everyone has same motive. (According the the Statist left).


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

"Do you want your auto insurance to pay for preexisting dents too? "

Idiotic argument.   You miss the point.  MAKE IT AFFORDABLE.   Trouble with reading?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Dumb argument.


----------



## Meister (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



More like overturning the will of the democrat politicians that passed this in the middle of the night.  I know a lot of democrat "people" that think this is a bogus bill.


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

"Indeed. it's an attack on the private sector. On individuals."

Insurance companies charging me exhorbitant prices is an attack on me.   But I should have access to affrodable health care.   Without insurance I dont.   They should have to cover everything I need if I am paying their ridiculous premiums.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



They could argue that. I think they'd be freaking stupid to since the people overwhelmingly opposed it to begin with. But hey, if they want to guarantee a GOP victory this year then please feel free.


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 27, 2012)

.

If indeed this thing is knocked down, the GOP (once it finishes its happy dance) damn well better have an alternative.  Something better than "we'll see what we can do, but you're still on your own."

.


----------



## Ropey (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



That's really good to hear Meister.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

initforme said:


> "Indeed. it's an attack on the private sector. On individuals."
> 
> Insurance companies charging me exhorbitant prices is an attack on me.   But I should have access to affrodable health care.   Without insurance I dont.   They should have to cover everything I need if I am paying their ridiculous premiums.



Then dont buy insurance. Or start your own insurance company. That's the beauty of America. We can do things differently.


----------



## Meister (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Yeah, it is.  But, the government could very well force you to do it.
They would have the authority.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Info for you. I LIVED in one of those countries for 10 years. My three kids were born there and the cost for health care for my family was 20% of what I pay here. The care was better and more customized than it is here.

WE DO NOT DO THIS WELL HERE. 

Why are so many of you people unable to accept that we need to make changes. It is fucking embarrassing.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> If indeed this thing is knocked down, the GOP (once it finishes its happy dance) damn well better have an alternative.  Something better than "we'll see what we can do, but you're still on your own."
> 
> .



Our alternative has always been the same: GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR HEALTH CARE


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



The federal government would NEVER go against the will of the people.


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...


 
Not only in the middle of the night but buying the Second Lousiana Purchase...and other backroom deals for a YES vote...

*The New $300 Million Louisiana Purchase on the Backs of Tax Payers  How Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.) Vote was Bought for Obamacare*


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



I'm amazed that you've summed your arguments up so much that you just tell us that it's dumb without actually boring us with actually reading it. Makes our discussions so much quicker and more efficient. Thank you


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

"Our alternative has always been the same: GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR HEALTH CARE"

Thats fine...But there had better be more than this.   The WHOLE SYSTEM needs a complete overahaul.   It is totally hypocritical to say "I'm PRO life" yet I'm for denying pre-existing conditions.   Once those jerks get sick then their tune changes.  HYPOCRITES.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Dumb is dumb. Why waste time on it. 

Would you like to support that dumb argument? Please........have at it.


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


 
And then where does it stop? The government can force the individual to do ANYTHING once the precident is set.

Liberty loses. People lose.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Yo T,

have you changed your sig yet?


----------



## Ropey (Mar 27, 2012)

The T said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



It won't need much precedent with such a hard wired open door to commerce.


----------



## Ernie S. (Mar 27, 2012)

initforme said:


> "While we're at it. maybe we should force carpenters and farmers to forgo their profit motives as well? What else do you think citizens should get free from the government? Cable? Internet? IPods? Condoms? "
> 
> All people want is affordable health care.  Right now it aint affordable to those who work hard just to maintain.   That says alot about our country.  ALOT OF BAD.



And a lot of people can't afford Cadillacs, Porter House steaks and 24 room mansions either.
Maybe we should just pile all of out money in the Capitol Rotunda and let the government hand us the keys to a Chevy Volt, 5 pounds of ground chuck and a lease on a section 8 apartment?
What happened to paying your own way in this country?


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...





Agreed.  "You're on your own".  But how about a few specifics?

What is a person with pre-existing conditions supposed to do when he is declined by an insurance company?  Even if he can afford the policy?

What is a person supposed to do if they can't afford $800 a month for a family policy?

What about their kids?

Should a person be turned away from the emergency room if they don't have insurance?

And on what date would you suggest ending Medicare and Medicaid health coverage?  Because if you're consistent, you'll want government out of those, too.

Details, please.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2012)

initforme said:


> "Indeed. it's an attack on the private sector. On individuals."
> Insurance companies charging me exhorbitant prices is an attack on me.


Your relationship with the insurance companies is completely voluntary.
Or, it was - but then The Obama forced you into having that relationship.



> But I should have access to affrodable health care.


Why?  Who are you and why are you special?


----------



## candycorn (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



I don't see the overwhelming dissent out there.  Working in healthcare, I hardly see any dissent at all at the program itself.  

I'll tell you what I hear from our administrators who are dealing with the situation--these are your classic middle aged men and women--Pool and Patio types; they love it; they love that the government made a law that moves the needle one way or the other because the alternative for our hospital system is that the number of occupied beds is decreasing most months.  Fewer patients means fewer dollars to put it bluntly.  As defacto traffic manager for the system, I see the numbers.  Our census is way down over the last five years.  Meanwhile the public sector hospitals are skyrocketing; this is what you and I are paying for.  

So if the poor who are apparently going to be served by it are for it, and at least one sector of the extremely affluent are on board, if the socially conscious liberals and moderates are for it, if the ideological left is for it, I don't think there are "overwhelmingly" large numbers that would be against it.  

Thanks for your input.


----------



## Liability (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?
> ...



He will cry and moan and groan and whine and cry some more.  Cry like a bitch.  Cry like the bitch he is.

Oh, and he will also cry and bitch and moan and groan and do some crying.

Then he'll cry a bit more.


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

"Then dont buy insurance. Or start your own insurance company. That's the beauty of America. We can do things differently. "

Sure.  I'll just start my own insurance company.   Whatever.   Like I could do that.   The beauty of america.  What a joke.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 27, 2012)

initforme said:


> "Indeed. it's an attack on the private sector. On individuals."
> 
> Insurance companies charging me exhorbitant prices is an attack on me.   But I should have access to affrodable health care.   Without insurance I dont.   They should have to cover everything I need if I am paying their ridiculous premiums.



This is America where you don't have to do anything for anybody at anytime; ever.  It says so in our 200+ year old constitution.  

God Bless.


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


 
As long as your paycheck is secure and you have Obama making it happen, right?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2012)

initforme said:


> "Then dont buy insurance. Or start your own insurance company. That's the beauty of America. We can do things differently. "
> 
> Sure.  I'll just start my own insurance company.   Whatever.   Like I could do that.   The beauty of america.  What a joke.



Why couldn't you do that?


----------



## Valerie (Mar 27, 2012)

candycorn said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > "Indeed. it's an attack on the private sector. On individuals."
> ...






I detect a little sarcasm there...........


----------



## Ernie S. (Mar 27, 2012)

initforme said:


> "Do you want your auto insurance to pay for preexisting dents too? "
> 
> Idiotic argument.   You miss the point.  MAKE IT AFFORDABLE.   Trouble with reading?



No, it's not, son. We're talking about insurance here


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

"Why? Who are you and why are you special? "

There it is.  So health care should be expensive and unaffordable.   Why should people get health care right?   What an incredibly stupid thought that is.   Health care.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

the mandate is definitely in trouble...
Excerpts From Supreme Court Hearing On ObamaCare | Fox News


----------



## IHBF (Mar 27, 2012)

This Act needs to be scrapped so it can go back to Congress and they can create a good one that addresses the COST of health care so that the COST can be affordable even without insurance.

Both liberals and conservatives should have a problem with the individual mandate.

First, there is no limiting principle. That means government could then require us to buy anything (cars, food, whatever) and it wouldn't be challenged because of this case.

Second (liberals should object to this), the government is requiring you to support a CORPORATION. An organization with the sole purpose of making a profit. Why isn't the Occupy crowd up in arms about that?


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > "Do you want your auto insurance to pay for preexisting dents too? "
> ...


 
And we're talking about robbing others for Government Control over others.

It isn't insurance at all...never has been.


----------



## Ernie S. (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



We'll see if SCOTUS agrees with you, or me, won't we?


----------



## candycorn (Mar 27, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



I'll be interested to see the results.  I think you should start a separate thread asking just the emboldened text above. 

I guess the answer is that the framers of our 200+ year old business plan didn't want you to have medicare so it should be done away with too; like social security, like the space program, like the EPA, like OSHA, etc...


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

*IF* Obamacare, and the individual mandate survive?

Where does it place 'TORT REFORM'?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



No we won't. they are not deciding the stupidity of your argument.


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

"Why couldn't you do that? "

Cuz I dont belong to the 1 percent.   I worked hard my whole life.  Bought my own house.   Raised my kids.  Didnt collect a dime of unemployment.  But I see that health care is hard to afford.   You believe differently.  You believe that only a select few should be able to have it.   You like the Plutocracy.  I cant stand it which is why I dont fly my flag anymore.


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

initforme said:


> "Then dont buy insurance. Or start your own insurance company. That's the beauty of America. We can do things differently. "
> 
> Sure. I'll just start my own insurance company. Whatever. Like I could do that. The beauty of america. What a joke.


 
Then get your ASS off of here and DO IT.


----------



## Liability (Mar 27, 2012)

initforme said:


> "Why? Who are you and why are you special? "
> 
> There it is.  So health care should be expensive and unaffordable.   Why should people get health care right?   What an incredibly stupid thought that is.   Health care.



If ObamaCare fails (and I hope it does) that does NOT mean that Congress is forever barred from trying to put some Acts in place that deal with the issues.  

Health care should NOT be overly expensive and it should not be unaffordable.  But it should also not be something over which the government is free to cram their preferred form of "relief" down our throats -- against our wills -- and in violation of our Constitution.

In short:  They may try again.  But they might be put on notice that the WAY they choose to go about it must be within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

If you and they don't like that, too fucking bad.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 27, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Why exactly is it good for people to make less profits?



That would depend on the situation and what people are making profits on. The Thirteenth Amendment dramatically reduced the profits of slave traders and slave owners. Do you think that was a good idea or a bad one?


----------



## Meister (Mar 27, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Really?

According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, if the decision about whether this central feature of the law should stay or go was up to the American public, the mandate would surely be overturned. The February poll, which sampled more than 1,000 American adults over the age of 18, found that* 72% of Americans believe the mandate to be unconstitutional.*
Poll: Americans Oppose Healthcare Mandate « Health Insurance Navigator


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 27, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...





Yup.  And let your thoughts race for a moment.  Imagine what would happen to current Medicare and Medicaid recipients if these folks had their way.  What would happen to them?

But those who want this would cheer, because their "freedom" would be enhanced.  So I guess there's a big fat silver lining.

.


----------



## IHBF (Mar 27, 2012)

Why isn't the Occupy crowd up in arms about being forced to buy a product from a corporation?


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

"This Act needs to be scrapped so it can go back to Congress and they can create a good one that addresses the COST of health care so that the COST can be affordable even without insurance."

This is EXACTLY what I have been saying.  Yet some here would say "The system works just fine."  But they are not my fellow americans.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 27, 2012)

The T said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



My paycheck is incredibly secure.  How's yours?  

Our census is lessening but then again, Healthcare is a growth industry on the whole so it's a foolish thing for you to say.  

Just pointing out (quoted from above):



> they [the administrators] love that the government made a law that moves the needle one way or the other because the alternative for our hospital system is that the number of occupied beds is decreasing most months.



Whether it is struck down or not, we'll be doing very well.  The most important thing for us is predictable forecasting so we can add/subtract staff, add/subtract outlays, etc...

Why you're in favor of paying directly for the poor through public sector hospitals instead of having a cheaper and better system is something for you to work out.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



According to LoneMoron, the mandate is the will of the people, because it passed through Congress and was signed by the President. WTF does that 72% know about the will of the people anyway?


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

"Then get your ASS off of here and DO IT. 


Do what?   What a LAME response.  L A M E.


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

IHBF said:


> Why isn't the Occupy crowd up in arms about being forced to buy a product from a corporation?




They are still living off of dad's policy until they are 26.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2012)

initforme said:


> "Why? Who are you and why are you special? "
> There it is.  So health care should be expensive and unaffordable.


I'm sorry -- you should try to respond to what I said, not what you want to respond to.
I asked you who you are why are are special, so much so that you should have access to health care.
How are you so entitled?
Please do try to answer the question.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Yawn. Half of them have been lied to. The other half are hoping for a more liberal solution. Yawn.


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 27, 2012)

.

Okay, so people who can afford health insurance are special, those who cannot are not.

Now we're getting somewhere.

.


----------



## Ernie S. (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



While free cable, internet and IPods is pretty ridiculous, food and shelter are at least as essential as health care. If we can remove the profit motive from health care, why not housing and food?
If it goes that far, who's to say it won't be Apple that is forced to go non profit?


----------



## Salt Jones (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > It was passed in the manner outlined in the constitution. Therefore, it is the will of the people.
> ...



Who voted for the Congress and the President? The people's will was displayed in the voting booth.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Do the math.


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

"I'm sorry -- you should try to respond to what I said, not what you want to respond to.
I asked you who you are why are are special, so much so that you should have access to health care.
How are you so entitled?
Please do try to answer the question. "

Explain why I should NOT be able to get health care.   What you are saying is you are for only certain people getting health care correct?  So you are for discrimination correct?   
AND, please, yes do try to answer the question.


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


 
But yet BOTH ignored the will of the people when thier e-mail system and faxes were slammed and not to mention the meltdown of the CapitolHill Switchboards.

Spare us this shit Salt-Peter.

They knew the resistence was strong...but back room deals happened anyway. 

And that resistence is stronger NOW against Obama Care

HOW do you square that?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2012)

initforme said:


> Explain why I should NOT be able to get health care.


No one said you shouldn't be able to get healthcare.
YOU, however, claimed an entitlement to it.
How are you so entitled? 
How are you special?


----------



## candycorn (Mar 27, 2012)

Valerie said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > initforme said:
> ...



he he he....

You guessed it.  Frustration as well  

Look, lets say someone is 45 years old and they are still living under a plan they wrote when they were 20.  And they are in sad shape financially, structurally, intellectually, and  cannot even begin to formulate a response to rectify any of it.  I would guess that you would think that person needs to alter the plan somewhat.  

Thats where we are at in this country.  Bound to this flawed document written by flawed people with what can only be called an insane allegiance to these writings that took place prior to the invention of the light bulb.  If you're watching this from Mars, you're not believing what you're seeing.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Probably celebrate a little. That would hasten the march toward single payer.
> 
> Republicans and the insurance lobby will have the most difficulty if the mandate is declared unconstitutional.
> 
> BTW.........the court is not acting within the limits placed on it by the USC if the rule on it either way. That ought to bother you nutters but it doesn't. Wonder why?



I assume "USC" refers to the United States Constitution.  What limits does that place on the Supreme Court that would interfere with it ruling "one way or the other?"


----------



## Salt Jones (Mar 27, 2012)

The T said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



Your will is at the voting booth. Once elected they are under no obligation to vote the way their voters want them to. They can vote anyway they want for 2 or 6 years, if the people they represent disagree then they can vote them out. Show me in the constitution where it says they have to vote the will of the people?


----------



## candycorn (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



I'm one of them who believe it is unconstitutional..  Difference between oppose and thinking it is unconstitutional.

Your right to privacy is non-existent; constitutionally speaking.

I think your right to privacy is a good thing.  Are you against your right to privacy?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Probably celebrate a little. That would hasten the march toward single payer.
> ...



Read on. You'll get to it. We can only hope that something shiny distracts you before you can respond.


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Salt Jones said:
> ...


 
Just because a REP or Senator is voted in doesn't mean they can or should completely IGNORE those that voted for them, or for that matter those whom didn't...But it's PARTY AGENDA over country against the people for shitheads as YOU, _isn't it?_

_YOU know ZILCH of what representitive Government really means._


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



you really are a fucking loon. If Obama loses in November, and you leave the board forever as per our wager, will that suddenly not be the will of the people?


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Yes. Do you think you have trapped me or something? The law was passed by duly elected representatives of the people and signed by the duly elected President of the United States. They shouldn't even be hearing the case.



Every law the Supreme Court has overturned was "passed by duly elected representatives of the people and signed by the duly elected President of the United States."  If you think that automatically makes a law constitutional, you're an idiot.

But we already knew that.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


I'd like an asnwer to that question, pleasw.
What limits -does- the Constitution place on the Supreme Court that would interfere with it ruling "one way or the other"?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 27, 2012)

IHBF said:


> Why isn't the Occupy crowd up in arms about being forced to buy a product from a corporation?



Because the idea that Occupy hates everything to do with corporations was always a right-wing talking point with no connection to reality.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 27, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



You notice there are no takers....

Wonder why?

I made it stand out more.  I'd like to hear what others have to say because, you're right.  if this is found to be unconstitutional, you'll have to find all of the other things unconstitutional too or at least acknowledge that they are and grin and bear it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. Do you think you have trapped me or something? The law was passed by duly elected representatives of the people and signed by the duly elected President of the United States. They shouldn't even be hearing the case.
> ...


"The will of the people" does not trump the Constitution.
That will can CHANGE the constitution, but cannot violate it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> And on what date would you suggest ending Medicare and Medicaid health coverage?  Because if you're consistent, you'll want government out of those, too.


March 26 2012.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Really? The stupidest reasoning you've ever heard in your life? Whoa!
> 
> Is the federal court system for overturning the will of the people?



Yes, that's exactly what it's for.

You are the biggest fucking moron in this forum.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Supreme Court & Judicial Review


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


 
Tell us what "equal but Separate BRANCHES" of our government is? And could you further clarify for us 'Separation Of Powers'?

I'll expect an answer for it in your own words in a day or so AFTER you research it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


Nothing in there answers my question to the end that I asked it.
Disagree?
Please copy and paste the text that meets the needs of my question.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 27, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> There is zero chance single payer will happen in the U.S. any time in the near future and it would be unconstitutional anyway.



If the court overturns Obamacare, government healthcare will never have a chance of getting passed ever again.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Really? The stupidest reasoning you've ever heard in your life? Whoa!
> ...



Keep going, dummy. The answers await you.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > There is zero chance single payer will happen in the U.S. any time in the near future and it would be unconstitutional anyway.
> ...


Yes.  Beautiful, isn't it?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



You don't agree. That does not mean that the question has not been answered. I have answered the question.


----------



## The T (Mar 27, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...


 

They didn't learn the first time from 'HillaryCare'...The Statists just had to wait to foist it and thensome for the bases to be loaded in thier favour.


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

initforme said:


> 4)  Create an individual law stating insurance companies MUST accept people with pre-existing conditions.




And while you are at it, make State Farm insure our automobiles *after* we wreck them!


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> It was passed in the manner outlined in the constitution. Therefore, it is the will of the people.




That doesn't make it constitutional, nimrod.  Do you think a bill giving government the authority to censor newspapers is constitutional, even if it was passed in the manner outlined in the Constitution?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Please, dummy. Learn your place.


----------



## jillian (Mar 27, 2012)

Since when do "most Americans" have a clue about what is constitutional?? If there was a vote on Jim Crow, it would still pass in places.

That's what the Court is there for.... or at least it used to be.

As for whether the Court will sustain the mandate... there are years of precedent saying they should. Not that precedent ever stood in the way of the justices who decided Bush v Gore...  That said, Kennedy did more than just ask the question he did... which was to be expected:

This is what was left out from the article at the beginning of the thread... it's what really came from SCOTUSBlog:



> The second, and possibly even more important, comment came from Justice Anthony Kennedy, a key swing vote on the Court.  Justice Kennedy appeared to voice some sympathy for the governments argument that the health care market is unique.  Even if a healthy young person without insurance may not need health care in a particular time period, he reasoned, that young person will nonetheless be very close to having an effect on insurance rates  for example, on the theory that, as he ages, he will eventually need care that he cant afford without insurance  in a way that just doesnt happen in other markets.
> 
> During his four minutes of rebuttal, Solicitor General Verrilli tried to return the Court to the big picture, reminding it once again that Congress had enacted the ACA to deal with a grave problem and that it opted to do so (and rejected the permissible alternative of having everyone buy insurance if and when they need it) with a method that it knew would actually work.  This is exactly the kind of choice, he concluded, that the Constitution leaves to the democratic process.



http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/t...glish-will-the-mandate-squeak-by/#more-141995


----------



## Pheonixops (Mar 27, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Justice Kennedy has harsh questions for the govts lawyer.
> 
> Check out scotusblog
> 
> Not looking good for uncle Sam.


Good, I hope so. But if you are betting on your republicans, check this out:


Pheonixops said:


> LOL, check this out......Bro. Let's check out some of "those" republican candidates:
> 
> "  *  MR. GREGORY:* Now, I know youve got big difference with what you call Obamacare. But back in 1993 on this program this is what you said about the individual mandate. Watch.
> (Videotape, October 3, 1993)
> ...


----------



## Salt Jones (Mar 27, 2012)

Different opinions:

"Reading the tea leaves, it sounds like Justice Kennedy accepts the basic framework of the challengers that mandates are different and especially troubling. Instead of saying that mandates are therefore banned, however, Justice Kennedy would require the government to show some special circumstances justifying the mandate in each case. The answered question in this case is whether the special economics of the health care market justifies the mandate here."

The Volokh Conspiracy » Kennedys Heavy Burden of Justification Approach, and Whether the Nature of the Health Care Insurance Market Can Satisfy It

"If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal governments defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive.  If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him.  But if he does not, the mandate is gone.  That is where Tuesdays argument wound up  with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandates savior."

"If the vote had been taken after Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., stepped back from the lectern after the first 56 minutes, and the audience stood up for a mid-argument stretch, the chances were that the most significant feature of the Affordable Care Act would have perished in Kennedys concern that it just might alter the fundamental relationship between the American people and their government.   But after two arguments by lawyers for the challengers  forceful and creative though they were  at least doubt had set in and expecting the demise of the mandate seemed decidedly premature."

Argument recap: It is Kennedys call (FINAL UPDATE 3:14 pm) : SCOTUSblog


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > 4)  Create an individual law stating insurance companies MUST accept people with pre-existing conditions.
> ...


yes because a kid born with cancer or a birth defect carries the exact same value as a car.


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > initforme said:
> ...



Not the Federal gubmints job.    But this you are learning the hard way!


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > SniperFire said:
> ...


really, you dont think the health and safety of its citizens is the governments job?

you willing to put your money where you mouth is?


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

Why don't all you weepy weepy libs all pool together and just give yourselves all the free healthcare you want?   I mean, their must be MILLIONS of you.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 27, 2012)

If you're a conservative and want to laugh your ass off.........go over to DRUDGE right now!!!

The list of lefty k00k losing is a mile long.









Shit........even Sotamayor kicked Obama in the balls today!!!


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> Why don't all you weepy weepy libs all pool together and just give yourselves all the free healthcare you want?   I mean, their must be MILLIONS of you.


who said anything about "free" health care. the ACA makes you purchase health care. what law are you referring to?

the difference is, that im willing to be part of a system that provides services to all for the same price, not services to some based on how much money they have.


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...




Not the Federal gubmint's job to pay your way in life.  Look it up.


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't all you weepy weepy libs all pool together and just give yourselves all the free healthcare you want?   I mean, their must be MILLIONS of you.
> ...



 How many millions of new people get dumped on the States for Medicaid with ACA?

Why are you posting if you are so shockingly ignorant of the subject matter?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > SniperFire said:
> ...


they pay for your roads that you drive on to get to work. should they not do that as well?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > SniperFire said:
> ...


medicaid is paid for through taxes, anyone that works a job pays taxes, hence they pay for those services.  i pay taxes that go into medicaid but i dont use those services. should i no longer have to pay medicaid now?

when challenged your argument begins to fall apart, since youre so narrow minded. but i can keep going if you want.


----------



## Meister (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Then you agree that the government could mandate everyone that they are required to wear a brimmed hat outside in the Sun.  This law would give them that kind of authority.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > SniperFire said:
> ...


can you choose to go outside or not?

can you choose to get cancer or not? 

answer me these simple questions...


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > SniperFire said:
> ...



No..............................................no, it would not. Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn.


----------



## Meister (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



 The government would be thinking of your health and safety if they mandated that if you go outside in the Sun you're required to wear a brimmed hat.  This is your line of reasoning...isn't it?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


not at all. now answer my questions.


----------



## Meister (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Explain? Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn


----------



## Ernie S. (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



It is precisely what they are deciding. Can the government compel commerce?


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



about the author of your source...

My Qualifications



> If this web site seems less than scholarly, it's because I am not a Constitutional Scholar. I hold no law degrees nor can I offer any qualifications whatever which would serve to prove me competent to hold forth on issues of constitutional law.


----------



## Meister (Mar 27, 2012)

> =Syphon;5027875]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Really...because this is your unaltered post, isn't it?


Syphon said:


> *really, you dont think the health and safety of its citizens is the governments job?*
> 
> you willing to put your money where you mouth is?


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

U.S. Supreme Court Jurisdiction


> While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.
> 
> Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.
> 
> ...


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> > =Syphon;5027875]
> >
> >
> >
> ...


you keep avoiding the question. answer my simple questions and we can proceed.


----------



## Salt Jones (Mar 27, 2012)

The T said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Show me in the constitution where it says they have to vote the will of the people.

Who chose Senators in the original Article I, section 3 of the Constitution?


----------



## Meister (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > > =Syphon;5027875]
> ...



Your being disengenuous with your answer to me.
If this law is passed, yes the government can mandate you wear a brimmed hat outside in the Sun.  Spin it until the cows come home


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

"No one said you shouldn't be able to get healthcare.
YOU, however, claimed an entitlement to it.
How are you so entitled? 
How are you special?"

Where did I claim I'm entitled to it?  All I'm saying is it should be made more affordable.   You dont belive that.  I can live with that.  I for one can still afford it.  Eventually though I wont be able to.  You would be happy to see me dead.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> Your being disengenuous with your answer to me.
> If this law is passed, yes the government can mandate you wear a brimmed hat outside in the Sun.  Spin it until the cows come home


again, is going outside a choice?
is getting cancer a choice?

last time ill ask before i ignore you since you plainly wont answer simple questions.


----------



## Meister (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Your being disengenuous with your answer to me.
> ...



Ignore me if you don't want to answer my question truthfully


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


you refused to answer a simple yes or no question 4 times now. so yes i will now ignore your argument, since youve shown an ability to actually have one.


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Your being disengenuous with your answer to me.
> ...



It is not the Federal government's job to guarantee you equal outcome in life.   Sorry.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


still avoiding the question i see.

and who said anything about equal outcome, how about equal access and opportunity.


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



I am giving you the answer.  You just don't want to hear it.


----------



## jillian (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Your being disengenuous with your answer to me.
If this law is passed, yes the government can mandate you wear a brimmed hat outside in the Sun.  Spin it until the cows come home[/QUOTE]

nonsense, my friend. that's absurd.

the mandate is a means of making everyone carry their fair share. that was the individual responsibility that the Heritage Foundation and all the rightwingers wanted. It's only because a democratic president enacted it that the right now takes issue with it. 

That's what's disingenuous.

I'll also point out that the commerce power is plenary and direct your attention to Wickard v Filburn.

Wickard v. Filburn | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

"It is not the Federal government's job to guarantee you equal outcome in life. Sorry. "

Nope.  It isnt.  That is until you get sick.  Your tune would change quick.  It'll happen.   You might take the brave and courageous bravo macho lie that people in america try to use.  But people are people.   When we need help then we need help.   americans arent any braver than anybody else.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

initforme said:


> "It is not the Federal government's job to guarantee you equal outcome in life. Sorry. "
> 
> Nope.  It isnt.  That is until you get sick.  Your tune would change quick.  It'll happen.   You might take the brave and courageous bravo macho lie that people in america try to use.  But people are people.   When we need help then we need help.   americans arent any braver than anybody else.


if this was also the case, then hospitals by law could refuse to provide services to those who they have deemed too expensive and have an inability to pay. i mean, the bottom line is the bottom line right??


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

jillian said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > you keep avoiding the question. answer my simple questions and we can proceed.
> ...



nonsense, my friend. that's absurd.

the mandate is a means of making everyone carry their fair share. that was the individual responsibility that the Heritage Foundation and all the rightwingers wanted. It's only because a democratic president enacted it that the right now takes issue with it. 

That's what's disingenuous.

I'll also point out that the commerce power is plenary and direct your attention to Wickard v Filburn.

Wickard v. Filburn | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law[/QUOTE]

That is horseshit.   It was pointed out there were potential Constitutional problems with the individual mandate fairly early on.


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

Well then as I've told others who have big medical bills

"pay only what you can pay. Take out a minimum payment plan."  You owe 25,000?   Pay $100 a month tops.  Good nuff.  Guess it will work out no matter what.


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

initforme said:


> "It is not the Federal government's job to guarantee you equal outcome in life. Sorry. "
> 
> Nope.  It isnt.  That is until you get sick.  Your tune would change quick.




It either is the Federal governments job, or it is not the Federal governments job, regardless of my 'tune.'

You are getting your ass kicked.


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > "It is not the Federal government's job to guarantee you equal outcome in life. Sorry. "
> ...



Correct.


----------



## initforme (Mar 27, 2012)

Well then, I say its fine to let the hospitals keep taking in those who cannot pay for it.  Fine with me.  No individual mandate.   As long as the health care is provided for for those who need it, no bid deal.   I for one would never plan on paying the entire exhorbitant bill for a catastrophic illness.  Sorry.


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

initforme said:


> Well then, I say its fine to let the hospitals keep taking in those who cannot pay for it.  Fine with me.



Of course you do.  You are a Communist.


----------



## J.E.D (Mar 27, 2012)

As usual, the decision will be in the hands of the swing vote - Kennedy. From the reporting that I've heard on this, the liberal justices seem to be siding with the fed gov't, the conservative justices seem to be siding with the states, and Kennedy seems like he could go either way.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > initforme said:
> ...


The why did the apostle known as Reagan sign the law forcing hospitals to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay? That's government intervention in the private market. Oh wait.... I guess Reagan is a socialist now....


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



So that makes you a Reagan supporter?
Noted.


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



The government often intervenes in 'private markets.'  Are you fucking stupid or something?


----------



## Ropey (Mar 27, 2012)

jillian said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Yes it is a means of making the people pay a fair share and it's the government who decides the fair share? The commerce power is all encompassing indeed. It's rather nice of you to mention that since it shows the depth of the connection from government to commerce at all levels.  Capitalism is commerce based and Capitalism under the control of the government?



OK...


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2012)

The T said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Kennedy said Health Care might be unique. duh. You people against this are totally deluded, ignorant, and duped. Also goes for single payer people. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, and Holland and Switz. are happy with their similar to ACA systems...
> ...



The mandate doesn't fund the provisions. It would make the system much more expensive for insurance companies though.


----------



## jillian (Mar 27, 2012)

JosefK said:


> *the liberal justices seem to be siding with the fed gov't, the conservative justices seem to be siding with the states*, and Kennedy seems like he could go either way.



do you realize the irony of those positions?


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2012)

The dumbest thing about this case is that it gets commerce clause jurisprudence backwards. Instead of starting with the mandate, start with guaranteed issue. Does Congress have the authority under the commerce clause to mandate guaranteed issue? The answer is unquestionably yes. At that point, what's the deal with the mandate? It's something to further the end of guaranteed issue. Does it have a rational basis toward furthering that end? Yes. Does health insurance constitute significant interstate commerce? Yes. Under the line of cases following _Wickard_, the mandate fully falls in line with Congress's authority.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > SniperFire said:
> ...


wow, hostility from the right, who knew...

well in the eyes of the law corporations are treated the same as people. remember the famous Romney line, "well corporations are people to." well since the government is mandating "corporations" provide a service to customers regardless of that customers ability to pay, this sets the precedent for the government enacting a mandate on people. 

if the government can mandate the a person provide a service to another person regardless of their ability to pay, then why cant the government force a person to pay for that same service?

and so your in agreement that government can intervene in the private sector and force companies to do something that they dont want to do? thanks, noted.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

Ropey said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


the government sets a minimum standard, like they do in many cases. this have never prevented someone from exceeding those standards. 

california has tougher pollution laws than nevada, but they still both must meet the federal minimum standard.


----------



## J.E.D (Mar 27, 2012)

jillian said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> > *the liberal justices seem to be siding with the fed gov't, the conservative justices seem to be siding with the states*, and Kennedy seems like he could go either way.
> ...



Yeah, I hadn't thought of it that way, but now that you mention it....


----------



## J.E.D (Mar 27, 2012)

I'd say this is a pretty telling quote from Kennedy that shows he's open to the gov't's argument:

And the government tells us that's because the insurance market is unique. And in the next case, it'll say the next market is unique. But I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree, in the insurance and health care world, both markets -- stipulate two markets -- *the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries.* *That's my concern in this case.*


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...




'Government' enacts all sorts of mandate on people.   You can't drive 135 miles down the highway, or example.  

The issue here is whether or not the Federal government has broad, new powers to force a person to participate in commerce to regulate commerce. 

You suck at this sort of thing.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

JosefK said:


> I'd say this is a pretty telling quote from Kennedy that shows he's open to the gov't's argument:
> 
> And the government tells us that's because the insurance market is unique. And in the next case, it'll say the next market is unique. But I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree, in the insurance and health care world, both markets -- stipulate two markets -- *the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries.* *That's my concern in this case.*


the test should be if a person "chooses" to participate in a given market. such as:

does one choose to get sick? does one choose to get cancer? does one choose to have a child born with a birth defect?

vs.

does one choose to [insert question here]. is that a fair test?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > SniperFire said:
> ...


actually there are areas of the country that have no speed limits. 

Montana: No Speed Limit Safety Paradox

again are you finally wiling to answer if one chooses to get cancer, or chooses to have a stroke?


----------



## Ropey (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



This is not about setting standards.  That's the Obama HC.  

This is about the mandate itself. The engine that drives the Obama HC.

And will drive much, much more imo.


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Also, in the context of the First Amendment, Congress shall make no laws restricting the freedom of speech among corporations or any sort of association of peoples.

Romney nailed it.


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Your point is non-sequitur.    You probably don't know what that means.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > SniperFire said:
> ...


so you ignored the rest of my statement, in which i said that the government has provided a mandate on corporation, er i mean people, that they provide services regardless of the customers ability to pay. so under that ruling, they could force car manufacturers to provide all citizens with cars regardless of their ability to pay right? and they could force big screen tv manufacturers to provide all citizens with new tvs, regardless of their ability to pay right?


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > SniperFire said:
> ...



Except that the government isn't forcing them to participate in commerce. They're already in the market now, they're just choosing to pay for any potential injuries out of pocket.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


you know "exactly" what the commerce clause was set up to??? really?? you where there when they wrote it and asked them to explain themselves to you directly???

AMAZING!!!!! all of our constitutional questions can now be resolved thanks to 1 single man....


----------



## Meister (Mar 27, 2012)

Meister said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...





Jillian, I know exactly what the Commerce Clause was set up for, and it was never intended for something like this. IMO it would give sweeping powers to our federal government. You or nobody else will change my mind on that.
I keep saying that I don't trust my government, and this is a great point for my reasoning. 
__________________


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...




When you build your 'comment' on a false premise, I destroy it, making you look foolish and completely invalidating you empty rhetoric. 

Deal with it.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > SniperFire said:
> ...


this coming from the person who refuses to answer simple yes or no questions, because you know the answers will destroy your argument. 

i guess that world of ignorance you live in really is bliss


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

Polk said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...




They are trying to, but the Supremes will toss it as being unconstitutional.   Changes the entire relationship between the individual and government, you know.


----------



## SniperFire (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Are you trying to argue that the New York Times Corporation can be silenced by Congress because they are a 'corporation'?

I love to destroy libs on this one! Let's roll.   LOL


----------



## dblack (Mar 27, 2012)

Polk said:


> Except that the government isn't forcing them to participate in commerce. They're already in the market now, they're just choosing to pay for any potential injuries out of pocket.



And we simply can't have that. The insurance industry won't stand for it!


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > SniperFire said:
> ...


nope, because we arent dealing with the first amendment in this case. but under the Reagan era law requiring hospitals to service patients regardless of their ability to pay, the government could force the NYT to provide newspapers to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. 

apparently this argument is way over you head.


----------



## Ernie S. (Mar 27, 2012)

jillian said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



From Justice Scalia:





> Could you define the market  everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli, Scalia said.


----------



## dblack (Mar 27, 2012)

I think we need to mandate some kind of remedial message board quote function training.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> From Justice Scalia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


true, but you can also choose to grown your own food and that negates purchasing it from a store.


----------



## Ernie S. (Mar 27, 2012)

dblack said:


> I think we need to mandate some kind of remedial message board quote function training.



Damned if I know how that happened.


----------



## Ernie S. (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > From Justice Scalia:
> ...



Exactly!


----------



## Liability (Mar 27, 2012)

O.k.  Let's say that ObamaCare gets gutted by the Supreme Court.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > From Justice Scalia:
> ...



and if a zoning ordinance in your township prevents you from growing food... what? You starve?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


what local zoning ordinance prohibits you from growing food in your own backyard? such as a garden........ genius idea.......


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > From Justice Scalia:
> ...



That was the argument in Wickard and the court rejected it because it was "an instant" away from interstate commerce.
You fail.


----------



## dblack (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> true, but you can also choose to grown your own food and that negates purchasing it from a store.



You could also choose to eschew institutional health care. Something that seems totally lost on the principals in this debate.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Georgia Man Steve Miller Fined for Backyard Garden in 'Cabbagegate' Saga

To feed a family of say 4, for a year, you'd need a plot this large at a minimum, and you'd need to keep it all for yourselves. Additionally, unless you're a vegetarian, you'd need livestock, etc.

Tell me the average home has the facilities, supplies, and legal ability to 'farm' at that level, even for personal use.


----------



## dblack (Mar 27, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I think we need to mandate some kind of remedial message board quote function training.
> ...



Heh... probably some kind of php snafu.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

dblack said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



copy/paste is a bitch, huh


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


the difference being that wickard was in the business of growing food to sell on the open market. in this case, the individual would be producing food for his own consumption and is not engaged in the business of selling food for profit. wickard was also given his land by the department of agriculture. 
*"He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat."* this is what gave the government the authority to regulate his commerce. is the DOA going to give me land to live on now?

how is this the same?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

Polk said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



They are clearly not in the market for health insurance if they choose to pay out of pocket.
Any more than I am in the market for a car if I choose to take the bus.
Fail.


----------



## Liability (Mar 27, 2012)

The more I look at this issue, the more I wonder how Rush could have gotten in "trouble" for saying (about the then new President Obama), "I hope he fails."

I still hope he fails.

ObamaCare is his landmark legislative accomplishment.  It sucks.  I HOPE the SCOTUS kills it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



I see your reading skills are on a par in this thread too.
No one gave Wickard any land.

Raich v Gonzales answers that where the case involved someone growing marijuana for his own consumption.  Same result.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Mar 27, 2012)

I'm sure Obama is very quietly hoping the Mandate fails muster.  It's one of the most corrupt and unpopular pieces of legislation and a SCOTUS turnover would make it a dead issue in November.  If they uphold it, he's saddled with defending it.

An interesting side effect of the mandate is that with the other clauses, which were well within the Feds regulatory power and which are actually pretty popular, private insurance companies are likely to go out of business in a generation, or private policies will spiral completely out of the price range of most folks.  However, no one in their right mind is going to try to touch pre-existing condition clause, the no cap clause, or the college age children clause, so it's kinda inevitable we will have a single payer system once the Mandate dies.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

Dr.Traveler said:


> I'm sure Obama is very quietly hoping the Mandate fails muster.  It's one of the most corrupt and unpopular pieces of legislation and a SCOTUS turnover would make it a dead issue in November.  If they uphold it, he's saddled with defending it.
> 
> An interesting side effect of the mandate is that with the other clauses, which were well within the Feds regulatory power and which are actually pretty popular, private insurance companies are likely to go out of business in a generation, or private policies will spiral completely out of the price range of most folks.  However, no one in their right mind is going to try to touch pre-existing condition clause, the no cap clause, or the college age children clause, so it's kinda inevitable we will have a single payer system once the Mandate dies.



Um, no.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...


yes a family can choose not to live in a certain city. if he lives in a city or area where he can grow his own food, this negates your argument. 
now tell me how a man can choose not to get cancer or have a heart attack?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Mar 27, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?
> 
> You CONZ are just whistling past the graveyard on this one.
> 
> ...



That's you just being bitter.
Who said anything about THIS SCOTUS being liberal?
Fact is, the court libs are outnumbered 5-4. And that is the only thing saving this country from Obama's socialist domestic policy and weak appeaser foreign policy.
"This is my last election. After I'm elected, I will have more flexibility."
That one thought to be off the record quote by Obama may very well end his administration in November.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > SniperFire said:
> ...


so if that same person needs a heart transplant and can not afford to pay, should hospitals have the right to deny services?

would you support repealing the reagan era law that forces hospitals to provide services to all people regardless of their ability to pay?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Deflection.  Totally irrelevant to your argument.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Mar 27, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure Obama is very quietly hoping the Mandate fails muster.  It's one of the most corrupt and unpopular pieces of legislation and a SCOTUS turnover would make it a dead issue in November.  If they uphold it, he's saddled with defending it.
> ...



Um.  Yes.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> would you support repealing the reagan era law that forces hospitals to provide services to all people regardless of their ability to pay?



It would be irrelevant as a doctor bound by the Hippocratic Oath can't deny treatment.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


it negates nothing. Why should I have to move? Or buy a house with a larger yard? Suppose this is all I can afford? I have a 20 by 30 backyard. Is that enough land to grow crops, raise livestock, for a family of 4 for a year?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > would you support repealing the reagan era law that forces hospitals to provide services to all people regardless of their ability to pay?
> ...


a doctor may not, but a hospital may.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...


ahhhh again, but it is your choice. no one is forcing you do to so. if you choose to live in a area that has those rules and regulations, then that is your freedom of choice. 

now tell me again how you choose to have a heart attack? or choose to get cancer?


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



now it's my choice to not be able to afford anything else? putz.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...


nope its your choice on where you live, its your choice and whether you choose to purchase food or grown your own. see the common theme here, its your choice..

now tell me again how you choose to have a heart attack or get cancer?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


so you agree that hospitals should be able to deny patients services if they cant pay..... noted, thanks.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...


thanks for neg rep. its shows how utterly retarded you that you can not comprehend what is a choice and what is not.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



whining about neg reps.. what a pussy. You related to Shitting Bull?

not being able to afford to move to an area that allows personal farming or not being able to afford to buy enough land for personal farming...NOT choices. Moron.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


Ah.  An all-show, no-go intellectual coward.
I'll accept your failure to support your assertion as a concession that you cannot.
Thanks for playing!


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



hahaha when someone starts name calling, its typically because their argument is falling apart and they have nothing left to stand on. so thanks for the name calling. 

nope its still a choice. no one and no government is forcing you to live where you live. rural communities cost less to live in than urban areas. oops guess you didnt know that. the fact that you fail to see this shows how uneducated you really are.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2012)

jillian said:


> Since when do "most Americans" have a clue about what is constitutional??


My 7-yr old has a better clue than you.  What's -that- tell you?


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



you really are too stupid for words.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...


what federal agency is forcing you to live where you currently live? the simple fact you can't understand this shows your stupidity and ignorance.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Neg rep for putting words in my mouth.
That isn't the subject and you know it.


----------



## Ernie S. (Mar 27, 2012)

So, when can we expect a ruling?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2012)

initforme said:


> Where did I claim I'm entitled to it?


YOU said:



> But I should have access to affrodable health care.



That is a claim of entitlement.
SO...
How are you so entitled? 
How are you special?"


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



No it's because your "arguments" are worthless.  When faced with defeat you change the subject or attack someone.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> So, when can we expect a ruling?


End of June, or so.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 27, 2012)

The thing that is indeed glorious about this board for conservatives is to watch epic levels of misery spew from the fucking k00ks when thier fucked up agenda's get the nut sack kick. These fuckers are beside themselves.

Did anybody watch the MSNBC shows tonight? HOLY MOTHER OF GOD........you wanna see pissed off people who look like thier sitting on a frozen tuning fork? Tune into that network this week as they are getting the proverbial balls in the vice treatment on the Florida phoney race case and now the ass bang with a telephone pole on the Obamacare stuff. Classic.................cant miss TV if you are a conservative by the way.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...


prove im wrong them. what law and what federal agency is forcing you to live where you currently live.......... this argument should be grand.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



my finances dictate my living situation, jackass.

enjoy your upcoming vacation.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...


yup and your finances are a choice. is the government now telling you what job you must have?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> The thing that is indeed glorious about this board for conservatives is to watch epic levels of misery spew from the fucking k00ks when thier fucked up agenda's get the nut sack kick. These fuckers are beside themselves.
> 
> Did anybody watch the MSNBC shows tonight? HOLY MOTHER OF GOD........you wanna see pissed off people who look like thier sitting on a frozen tuning fork? Tune into that network this week as they are getting the proverbial balls in the vice treatment on the Florida phoney race case and now the ass bang with a telephone pole on the Obamacare stuff. Classic.................cant miss TV if you are a conservative by the way.



I love the way you post.  I wish I could bottle it for when I'm feeling down.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



I'm not claiming there is.
What exactly are you trying to prove again?


----------



## Conservative (Mar 27, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



how stupid he is.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2012)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > would you support repealing the reagan era law that forces hospitals to provide services to all people regardless of their ability to pay?
> ...


Well sure - the idea is that doctors are servants of the public good and thus are expected to put the public good above all else.  Right? 

Interesting that, this oath does not (literall, anyway) prevent passing along the costs of providing goods and services to those who cannot pay to people who did not receive those goods and services.  

If one shall use the altruisim of the Hippocratic Oath as a sheild, one shall then accept all of the related tenets.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



At least he's successful at something.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


prove me wrong that you dont choose to have a heart attack or choose to have a stroke

prove me wrong that you dont choose where you live

prove me wrong that you cant choose to grown your own food

still waiting for that all knowing all seeing answer..


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Did I say any of those?  I dont think so. It's the voices in your head.
What was the point of all of that again?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


oh so now you agree that one doesnt choose to participate in the health care market.
and now you also agree that one can choose to grow their own food and no purchase anything from the store. and if you currently dont have the capacity to grow your own food at your current residence, you are free to choose to move to a different residence where this is possible. hence throwing out the broccoli argument. 

so now if one doesnt choose to participate in the health care market, how is the mandate infringing on one's freedoms?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


You're asking if someone chooses not to participate in the health INSURANCE market but is forced to by the mandate how is that an infringement on freedom?
Are you serious?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


wow your reading comprehension is way off. it was already established that *one does not choose *to participate in the health care market, since everyone needs medical care at some point in their life they do not choose to participate. apparently this is was over your head. this is vastly different from choosing not to participate. guess the english language isnt your strong suite. since people dont choose to participate, this is not an infringement upon a persons freedom of choice.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Youv'e confused the health CARE market with the health INSURANCE market.  The mandate is about insurance, not health care.
And your argument is fallacious anyway because not everyone needs expensive medical care at some point in his life.
Nor is the issue about medical care for life but rather year by year and many many people go years without needing any medical attention at all.

So other than spouting nonsense your arguments are fallacious from the get go.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


since health insurance is how you pay for health care, they are one in the same for the purpose of this argument. 

so now you can choose not to have a heart attack? you can choose not to get cancer? you can choose not to be born with a birth defect? the argument goes to the heart of the problem. if health care is a true commodity, then hospitals should be allowed to refuse services to any one for any reason. is this a better system for us to live in? only the rich get access to health care services?

if you want a simple solution to all of this, simply make people who do not want to purchase health insurance sign a waiver. that waiver will simply say that a hospital can refuse to provide them services if they can not provide an ability to pay. this way those of us who actually pay for our health care dont have to subsidize those who refuse to pay.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



No, health insurance is not how you pay for health care.  I've paid for a lot of healthcare out of my own pocket.  Thus they are not identical and your argument fails.  Again.
Next fallacy.


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Please perform your own open heart surgery.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


soooo if you develop cancer, and the treatment costs $200,000. you can foot that cost out of pocket?

and if you cant pay that, then the hospital should have the right to not provide you with the treatment right?


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



It is highly relevant to the subject though.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Not many people in their 20s develop cancer.  But cancer is not what the mandate is all about.  If people had the option of catastrophic coverage we might could talk.  But under Obamacare the mandate specifically outlaws high deductible catastrophic policies.
You have shifted the argument again because you've lost.  Health insurance is not synonymous with health care.  Plenty of people pay for health care costs out of pocket.  More need to do so, btw.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

Polk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



No it is actually irrelevant to the subject.
But I wouldnt expect you could follow that.


----------



## Polk (Mar 27, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Of course it is. Emergency treatment requirements allow the uninsured to force their cost on to others, being involved in the market even though they are "inactive".


----------



## Syphon (Mar 27, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


yet you can provide no link that supports you argument that people in their 20's rarely develop cancer. 
yet you can develop cancer at any age anytime, and have no choice in the matter. so it does happen. 

what exact section of law outlaws "high deductible" plans? id like to see that exact section verbatim. 

the law mandates a minimum about of coverage. its not single payor which would be better, but it sets the minimum coverage level. this is such a terrible thing i know.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



You're making a good argument but the fact of the matter is that people can refuse medical care even if they "need" it.  It may be for their ill-good but they can refuse it.  We have mothers refusing to get their kids vaccinated, for example.

Amazing how he was all for government intervention when his boy Perry was forcing 12 year olds to get cervical cancer shots that turned out to be deadly.

Stop wasting time with that political hack.


----------



## Listening (Mar 27, 2012)

Conservative said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...





Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



This is bogus bull.  There is no argument that not choosing to buy insurance keeps you out of the health care market.

And.....

You can choose not to participate in the health care market.  We showed that on other threads but you stilll hold to your precious article of faith.

Fail....

Still waiting for those sections of Federalist 10....


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 28, 2012)

Unbelievable bullshytte. Welcome to a modern America. Where health care is guaranteed, affordable, and getting cheaper. No more 45k deaths or 750k bankruptcies (3/4 people who THOUGHT they had good insurance)...


----------



## libreamer (Mar 28, 2012)

stop it!


----------



## libreamer (Mar 28, 2012)

stop whining!


----------



## libreamer (Mar 28, 2012)

hey, I'm a police officer


----------



## libreamer (Mar 28, 2012)

I'm detective John Kimble!


----------



## Syphon (Mar 28, 2012)

Listening said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


now shut the fuck about fed 10. ive posted this same article for you 3 times, which proved madison was in favor of a strong central government. 


Central to the tenth paper in the Federalist series is faction. The argument Madison makes is that faction and liberty are inseparable. Instead of focusing on trying to eliminate the causes for faction, the choice of government can control the effects of faction. Madison makes the argument that the means to control the causes of faction is to stamp on dissenting opinions, and remove liberty. In other words oppress until all the polity is of the same opinion. This is totalitarianism. Madison dismisses this as being against the nature of man;
As long as the reason of man continues to be fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed
Faction is a normal part of liberty, and wrapped in the fallibility of humankind. John Stuart Mills makes similar arguments as to why freedom of expression should never be curtailed. An individual can never be sure that they are not suppressing a truthful opinion as humanity's reasoning abilities are not perfect. Madison uses a similar argument to Mills as to why liberty cannot be abolished in a functioning government;
Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
From this Madison concludes that liberty and faction are essential in any healthy government system. What isn't healthy is the violence of faction. Madison argues that controlling the effects of violent faction can be achieved through the Republican model of government.
Any individual needs to be concerned about government using the apparatus of the nation-state for the purposes of coercion. Madison was also concerned with this issue, he saw the violence of faction being when a group of individuals created a faction with a common interest that was adverse to individual rights, the rights of minorities and against the common good. Madison's view of common good is similar to the Aristotlean notion of virtue being necessary in the ruling elite.
The environment that Madison wrote this in needed to explain how the new constitution and republican form of federal government would have greater stability than the previous continental congress. The paper also needed to explain how the system would protect against the competing factions drowning out the rights of minorities and the public good. It also needed to explain how it would halt mob rule. All issues that had posed problems in the self-government of the colonies previous, during and after the revolution of 1776.
Madison sees faction as an unavoidable in a polity of maximum liberty, and consequently seeks to minimize the violence of faction through the system; in other words controlling the effects of faction. Representative government is the process by which Madison seeks to temper this.


Short Essay on Federalist Paper No.10

The Federalist #10

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.


----------



## LockeJaw (Mar 28, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...


Yada yada. Nice screen name. It suits you.


----------



## dblack (Mar 28, 2012)

Polk said:


> Of course it is. Emergency treatment requirements allow the uninsured to force their cost on to others, being involved in the market even though they are "inactive".



EMTALA is responsible for much less cost-shifting than the ACA apologists pretend. But I realize that they are a stingy lot and get pretty angry if they feel like _any_ of their money is being diverted to someone in need. The thing is, we can address their selfish concerns much more easily by simply repealing EMTALA. No need for a multi-billion dollar subsidy to the insurance industry.


----------



## Polk (Mar 28, 2012)

dblack said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it is. Emergency treatment requirements allow the uninsured to force their cost on to others, being involved in the market even though they are "inactive".
> ...



The irony meter is through the roof of someone opposed to any form of social aid claiming liberals are "angry... their money is being diverted to someone in need". The problem with repealing EMTALA is you're leaving those who truly need help in the street to die.


----------



## dblack (Mar 28, 2012)

Polk said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



LOL.... hey, the irony was already sitting there. I just italicized it.


----------



## Polk (Mar 28, 2012)

Anyone should be angry though that those who don't really need emergency treatment are using the ER as a primary care facility.


----------



## Full-Auto (Mar 28, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



a GARDEN in your backyard will not sustain that household for then a few months at best.

Commercial growing in the cities is generally prohibited.  But you want to whine some. Right?


----------



## dblack (Mar 28, 2012)

Polk said:


> Anyone should be angry though that those who don't really need emergency treatment are using the ER as a primary care facility.



Doesn't make me angry. EMTALA is a dumb law. It's mostly just obvious and funny that it produces dumb results.


----------



## Polk (Mar 28, 2012)

dblack said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone should be angry though that those who don't really need emergency treatment are using the ER as a primary care facility.
> ...



I think there is a social value in not saying "you're poor and therefore your live is meaningless". Trading in human blood is something I find highly unethical.


----------



## dblack (Mar 28, 2012)

Polk said:


> I think there is a social value in not saying "you're poor and therefore your live is meaningless". Trading in human blood is something I find highly unethical.



Agreed. I also think there is a pathology in this country that presumes the way to address such moral yearnings is to order other people to do what we're too lazy to do ourselves. And that's what EMTALA does. It's what PPACA is all about.

To put it another way, if we think government should ensure that everyone has health care, then we should raise the funds legitimately, via taxation, and provide them with health care. I think it's wrong to simply turn to arbitrary mandates and demand that other people do things against their will to spare us from higher taxes.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 28, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Justice Kennedy has harsh questions for the govts lawyer.
> 
> Check out scotusblog
> 
> Not looking good for uncle Sam.



Its looking good for uncle sam, if you think uncle same is a representative of the constitution and not an overreaching federal govt that is


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 28, 2012)

dblack said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > I think there is a social value in not saying "you're poor and therefore your live is meaningless". Trading in human blood is something I find highly unethical.
> ...



Well said!


----------



## Conservative (Mar 28, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> It was passed in the manner outlined in the constitution. Therefore, it is the will of the people.



your position that all laws passed by Congress are constitutional, and the Supreme Court should have no review power, is not shared by members of congress...

When Congress passes unconstitutional laws. - Slate Magazine


> Before that amendment was rejected, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, announced, "I'm not going to support a bill that's blatantly unconstitutional ... that suspends a right that goes back to [the Magna Carta in] 1215."  He added, "I'd be willing, in the interest of party loyalty, to turn the clock back 500 years, but 800 years goes too far."
> 
> Specter's justification for then voting for a bill he deemed unconstitutional? "Congress could have done it right and didn't, but the next line of defense is the court, and I think the court will clean it up."


----------



## Conservative (Mar 28, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



I tried explaining the fallacy of his argument, but it's like trying to explain physics to a 2 year old. They see your mouth moving, but simply don't have the mental capacity to understand you.


----------



## Full-Auto (Mar 28, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Loners argument was pretty funny too.

Imagine, this is their best and brightest too.


----------



## Decepticon (Mar 28, 2012)

Half the CONZ on here think taxes are a fricking crime against humanity.  What the hell do any of them know about constitutional law?  Even less.

The commerce clause is fricking HUGE in the world of SCOTUS.
One farmer lost his case against the fed government and told him he couldn't grow wheat on his own farm for his own use on that farm because it impacted interstate commerce, which was the domain of congress.

That's precedence, bitches.  It means something in SCOTUS cases.
Which is a greater abuse of power?  Compelling you to buy something as an investment in the entire community, much like taxation,  or telling you what you can and cannot do on your own land?

Do some actual reading that's not some right wing retard site and you people might actually LEARN a thing or two about how your country ACTUALLY WORKS instead of how you think it does.


----------



## Decepticon (Mar 28, 2012)

Not to crush you retard asshat contards...but....I'm going to crush you retard asshat contards now.




It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.
One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn, and it is one of the most famous US Supreme Court decisions ever rendered because it represents a gross expansion of the tyranny of the federal government.
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn


Way to prove you frickin dolts have NO CLUE about what you're talking about here.


----------



## dblack (Mar 28, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Half the CONZ on here think taxes are a fricking crime against humanity.  What the hell do any of them know about constitutional law?  Even less.
> 
> The commerce clause is fricking HUGE in the world of SCOTUS.
> One farmer lost his case against the fed government and told him he couldn't grow wheat on his own farm for his own use on that farm because it impacted interstate commerce, which was the domain of congress.
> ...



That's a good point. The case is hardly a slam dunk. But precedent can (and in this case should) be reversed. We'll see how it goes. Looks like Kennedy and Roberts are the 'deciders'.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 28, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Half the CONZ on here think taxes are a fricking crime against humanity.  What the hell do any of them know about constitutional law?  Even less.
> 
> The commerce clause is fricking HUGE in the world of SCOTUS.
> One farmer lost his case against the fed government and told him he couldn't grow wheat on his own farm for his own use on that farm because it impacted interstate commerce, which was the domain of congress.
> ...



How is my health insurance INTERSTATE commerce?

My insurance company is based in Boston and my payments to them stay in state, I live in Massachussetts, my doctor is in MA, and I don't do any dealings with my insurance company over state lines.

How is that interstate?  I don't see it please enlighten me.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 28, 2012)

He can't. 

Hell. Insurance companies can't even compete across State Lines in most States.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 28, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Not to crush you retard asshat contards...but....I'm going to crush you retard asshat contards now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


cross posting is a no-no here, Deceptimoron.



> Cross posting is not allowed and is considered spam.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 28, 2012)

Claudette said:


> He can't.
> 
> Hell. Insurance companies can't even compete across State Lines in most States.



allowing sale of health insurance across state lines would go a long way to reducing costs for health insurance.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 28, 2012)

I hope the right wingers in the supreme court do play politics with this so the voters understand how important it is to have a Democrat in the White House.  Justices are retriing and we already have to deal with Roberts for at least 30 years unless he gets ill god willing.  They need to throw Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas off the court.


----------



## Full-Auto (Mar 28, 2012)

sealybobo said:


> I hope the right wingers in the supreme court do play politics with this so the voters understand how important it is to have a Democrat in the White House.  Justices are retriing and we already have to deal with Roberts for at least 30 years unless he gets ill god willing.  They need to throw Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas off the court.



So you can not surrender your freedom fast enough.

Typical for the left.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 28, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > He can't.
> ...



Indeed it would, but since we don't how can it be regulated under the interstate commerce clause?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 28, 2012)

The righties on the Supreme Court already proved to be right wing hacks when they passed Citizens United.  This will just be another blow to their reputations so they will pass Obamacare.  Plus they don't wan't to lose the only issue they have in an election year.  

Fact is, Obamacare is great and is getting better and better every year as the mandates for the insurance companies kick in.  Some have yet to kick in.  Soon healthcare will be affordable.  You won't mind buying it just like you don't mind buying car insurance.  And a form of single payer is coming.  If the GOP undo Obamacare, what is their solution?  They don't have one.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 28, 2012)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...lause-precedents-you-dolts-2.html#post5030134

decepticon ran away over here with the interstate stuff, don't let him hide


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 28, 2012)

Willard v. Filburn regulated an activity.  obamacare purports to regulate an inactivity.  That's the difference.  Had Filburn decided not to grow wheat at all there would be no case.   The Justices have WAAYYY more of an understanding of Con Law than the retard here.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 28, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I hope the right wingers in the supreme court do play politics with this so the voters understand how important it is to have a Democrat in the White House.  Justices are retriing and we already have to deal with Roberts for at least 30 years unless he gets ill god willing.  They need to throw Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas off the court.
> ...



Righties like to talk in one two word talking points.  Freedom.  Unconstitutional.  HA!  You don't know what you are talking about.  That is why you say things without explanation.  

Do you know that this argument/debate is actually an old argument that we had during Thomas Jefferson's time?  We haven't had this argument since but the GOP have run out of options so they have dusted off the old playbook.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 28, 2012)

sealybobo said:


> The righties on the Supreme Court already proved to be right wing hacks when they passed Citizens United.  This will just be another blow to their reputations so they will pass Obamacare.  Plus they don't wan't to lose the only issue they have in an election year.
> 
> Fact is, Obamacare is great and is getting better and better every year as the mandates for the insurance companies kick in.  Some have yet to kick in.  Soon healthcare will be affordable.  You won't mind buying it just like you don't mind buying car insurance.  And a form of single payer is coming.  If the GOP undo Obamacare, what is their solution?  They don't have one.



I can't even begin to explain to you how many fallacies are in that post.


----------



## Full-Auto (Mar 28, 2012)

sealybobo said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Sure pal.  You can not surrender your liberty fast enough, your posts have proved that over and over, then if we examine the corruption you support through silence, we realize that Madison was right, you dont deserve liberty.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 28, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...



ARE YOU ONE OF THESE?  SOUND LIKE ONE TO ME.  

Fox News and Conservative Talk Radio Republicans:
These are one of the angriest groups of Republicans. They watch Fox News or listen to Conservative Talk Radio and they think it makes them an expert on politics. The only knowledge they have of politics is parroted talking points without any facts to back them up. When you defeat them in debate they will resort to calling you names like Liberal, commie, socialist or baby-killer etc. They think all liberals are socialists that want to take their money and give it to people who dont deserve it.

The reason why this type of Republican is an idiot:
They have no idea what they are talking about. Usually theyre just repeating things they have heard from Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. They think that liberals want to take away their freedoms and they clearly dont know what the word liberal means, or what liberals have done for our country and freedom. They think President Obama is comparable to Hitler for passing health-care reform. They accuse you of watching MSNBC if you dont agree with them. They call you a sheep but expect you to blindly believe everything they tell you, without question.

What to Remember when debating them:
Keep demanding facts from them to back up their assertions until they break down and call you any of the aforementioned names. Ask them to name specific freedoms that liberals have taken away from them. They have a tendency to become violent so watch their hands if you are debating them face to face.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 28, 2012)

Conservative said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The righties on the Supreme Court already proved to be right wing hacks when they passed Citizens United.  This will just be another blow to their reputations so they will pass Obamacare.  Plus they don't wan't to lose the only issue they have in an election year.
> ...



YOU ARE PROBABLY ONE OF THESE:

Tea Party Republicans:
These Republicans are a dumbed-down Fox News Republican.  They think Sarah Palin is intelligent and its the media filters fault that she looks so stupid. They think Reagan was fiscally Conservative even though he tripled the deficit. They watch Fox News religiously, and think Glenn Beck is credible. They dont understand why people think theyre racist while theyre standing next to people holding racist signs. They protest higher taxes even though taxes have gone down for 95% of working families.

The reason why this type of Republican is an idiot:
They parrot Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin talking points. When you discredit one thing they say they immediately move on to the next subject. Anyone that doesnt agree with them is a socialist, even though they cant give you the actual definition of socialism. Many of them are on Medicare while protesting socialism. They have never met a socialist, so they have no idea what socialists believe. They think liberals are socialists and socialists are Nazis.

What to Remember when debating them:

They have no idea what theyre talking about. Ask them to prove what they are saying. If you ask them a question and they respond with a question refuse to answer their question until they answer yours. Dont back down. Remind them that taxes have actually been lowered for 95% of working families. If debating them in public be careful because they are known to carry guns in places they dont need them, like public parks and bars and churches.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 28, 2012)

Liberals really don't like freedom.  They want a totalitarian utopia where the government takes care of them.


----------



## Full-Auto (Mar 28, 2012)

sealybobo said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I am uninterested in your perceptions, I will stick with the facts or details presented.

Take you best shot though, I just defeated two obamabots yesterday in two separate court hearings, One bot got more time then the prosecutor asked for.  Victim impact statements are a bitch. The other will be paying out 6 figures over the next twelve months.

Never tell someone how you ripped someone off then rip off that person.


----------



## Valerie (Mar 28, 2012)

*Transcript: Health care Supreme Court arguments, Tuesday Part 1*
Transcript: Health care Supreme Court arguments, Tuesday Part 1 - POLITICO.com

*Transcript: Supreme Court health care argument, Tuesday Part II*
Transcript: Supreme Court health care argument, Tuesday Part II - POLITICO.com


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 28, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...



In other words I misjudged you.  You are actually an

Extremely Idiotic Republican:

These Republicans are Republicans because they think its cool. 

The reason why this type of Republican is an idiot:

They think that Republicans are fiscally conservative because they say that they are, and call anyone that doesnt agree with them sheep. They ignore all historical information that is contradictory to what they say. They are 100% blind to facts.

What to Remember when debating them:

No amount of facts or logic will ever convince them that their buddies are wrong. You could be a college professor and they will still think that your opinion isnt credible. Instead of trying to argue with them try explaining Algebra to your dog. Im sure it will be much more productive


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Mar 28, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> How is my health insurance INTERSTATE commerce?
> 
> My insurance company is based in Boston and my payments to them stay in state, I live in Massachussetts, my doctor is in MA, and I don't do any dealings with my insurance company over state lines.
> 
> How is that interstate?  I don't see it please enlighten me.



Actually, Health Insurance by law isn't Interstate Commerce.  You can't buy policies out of state.  The GOP pushed for allowing folks to buy policies across state lines and that got shut down for some very good reasons.  The irony here is that if the Democrats had caved on that issue, Health Insurance would have become Interstate Commerce and fallen under the purview of the Federal Government.


----------



## Full-Auto (Mar 28, 2012)

sealybobo said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You arent sharp enough in any category to know my views.

But I will make a challenge to you, that you will choose to wimp out of.

Pick the political spectrum test of your choice for us to compare who the whack job is.


Man up wuss.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Mar 28, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > He can't.
> ...



Actually, it wouldn't.  Take a few minutes and research where your credit cards are all based out of... I guarantee you that you'll find out they're all based out of two states, Utah and Delaware.

Then research WHY.

Once you're done you'll realize that allowing folks to purchase across state lines would open up a Pandora's box unlike anything you've ever seen.  It's a good thing you can't purchase insurance across state lines.  Plus, allowing purchase across state lines undercuts the power of the individual States, something I am not in favor of.

Now, if it does happen that the Feds and the States allow purchase across State lines then insurance will constitute interstate commerce and the mandate is back in play.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 28, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Liberals really don't like freedom.  They want a totalitarian utopia where the government takes care of them.


conservative dont like equality, they think you should have to pay for it.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 28, 2012)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...


the ACA will actually allow you to purchase insurance across state lines.


----------



## Decepticon (Mar 28, 2012)

Conservative said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The righties on the Supreme Court already proved to be right wing hacks when they passed Citizens United.  This will just be another blow to their reputations so they will pass Obamacare.  Plus they don't wan't to lose the only issue they have in an election year.
> ...



So you don't explain ANY of them.

Results?  The same as if you didn't refute a single "fallacy"

I can't even begin to explain to you how badly you failed in that post.  And I doubt you'd understand if I tried.


----------



## LogikAndReazon (Mar 28, 2012)

Liberals need their lives controlled and managed by dimwitted bureaucrats

theyre too cerebrally constrained to help themselves


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 28, 2012)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



There is tremendous competition among credit card issuers.  I can choose from hundreds of cards offering many options to suit my particular situation.
I wish health care were that flexible.

If that happened there would be no need for the Feds to intervene.


----------



## Polk (Mar 28, 2012)

dblack said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > I think there is a social value in not saying "you're poor and therefore your live is meaningless". Trading in human blood is something I find highly unethical.
> ...



We are actually in agreement on an extent, in that it would be better to tax and then direct address problems, instead of using regulations as a roundabout way to achieve the same end.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 28, 2012)

Polk said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Such huge tax increases would never pass Congress.  Which is why they didnt do that.  And really the crux of Obamacare, which introduced a backdoor "tax" in the form of a mandate.


----------



## Conservative (Mar 28, 2012)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Insurance Companies Should Be Allowed to Sell Policies Across State Lines - WSJ.com


> Devon Herrick, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis who has written extensively on this subject, notes that insurance companies operating nationally would compete nationally. The reason a Kentucky plan written for an individual from New Jersey would save the New Jerseyan money is that New Jersey is highly regulated, with costly mandated benefits and guaranteed access to insurance.
> 
> Affordability would improve if consumers could escape states where each policy is loaded with mandates. "If consumers do not want expensive 'Cadillac' health plans that pay for acupuncture, fertility treatments or hairpieces, they could buy from insurers in a state that does not mandate such benefits," Mr. Herrick has written.





> A 2008 publication "Consumer Response to a National Marketplace in Individual Insurance," (Parente et al., University of Minnesota) estimated that if individuals in New Jersey could buy health insurance in a national market, 49% more New Jerseyans in the individual and small-group market would have coverage. Competition among states would produce a more rational regulatory environment in all states.
> 
> This doesn't mean sick people who have kept up their coverage but are more difficult to insure would be left out. Congressman Shadegg advocates government funding for high-risk pools, noting that their numbers are tiny. The big benefit would come from a market supply of affordable insurance.


----------



## dblack (Mar 28, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Yeah.. it was funny listening to them dance around this in court the last few days. All the discussion about whether it was a tax or not - and the justices kept asking "why didn't they just call it a tax". The lawyers kept whipping up bullshit reasons, but everyone in the room new it was because the congress folks just didn't want to cop to raising taxes for political reasons. So, instead, they come up with something much worse than a tax. Chickenshits.


----------



## Polk (Mar 28, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > He can't.
> ...



Yes, in that insurance companies would be willing to sell a policy a pretty low price if it didn't cover anything.


----------



## Polk (Mar 28, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Because insurance is just a mechanism for delivering health care, which is definitely conducted across state lines.


----------



## naturegirl (Mar 28, 2012)

We can fix Health Care costs fairly simply.........sell health insurance across state lines and pass a law that loser pays all in law suits.  Those trial lawyers are going to be very careful who they sue.  

Watch how health care becomes more affordable when companies face real competition and watch fees be significantly reduced when Ms. Suzie  can't sue because doesn't like the way her toe looks after surgery to remove an ingrown toenail.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 28, 2012)

naturegirl said:


> We can fix Health Care costs fairly simply.........sell health insurance across state lines and pass a law that loser pays all in law suits.  Those trial lawyers are going to be very careful who they sue.
> 
> Watch how health care becomes more affordable when companies face real competition and watch fees be significantly reduced when Ms. Suzie  can't sue because doesn't like the way her toe looks after surgery to remove an ingrown toenail.


the ACA allows for that.


----------



## naturegirl (Mar 28, 2012)

Syphon said:


> naturegirl said:
> 
> 
> > We can fix Health Care costs fairly simply.........sell health insurance across state lines and pass a law that loser pays all in law suits.  Those trial lawyers are going to be very careful who they sue.
> ...



So why is it 1100 pages??  It's what else that's in there that worries me, and most other Americans.  Stuff we don't need if we take care of just those two little things.


----------



## Polk (Mar 28, 2012)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Even better? The bill the Republicans introduced to allow sales across state line includes the territories as states for the purpose of the bill. Which means your health insurance could be based on the rules of the Northern Mariana Islands. The same Northern Mariana Islands that still has sweatshops.


----------



## Polk (Mar 28, 2012)

Syphon said:


> naturegirl said:
> 
> 
> > We can fix Health Care costs fairly simply.........sell health insurance across state lines and pass a law that loser pays all in law suits.  Those trial lawyers are going to be very careful who they sue.
> ...



The ACA does not get rid of the American Rule in malpractice suits.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 28, 2012)

naturegirl said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > naturegirl said:
> ...


maybe if you read it, you would have a better understanding of it.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 28, 2012)

Polk said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...


better yet, the only difference between the GOP plan (available on gop.gov) and the ACA is the removal of the mandate and the addition of tort reform. 

so what is the GOP really offering thats different?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 28, 2012)

Polk said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > naturegirl said:
> ...


youre correct. sorry i was referring to selling across state lines. you are correct that it did not include tort reform. IMO it should have.


----------



## Liability (Mar 28, 2012)

Syphon said:


> naturegirl said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



What a nonsensical reply.

It is not 1100 pages, first of all.  It is over 2000 pages.

And it's not like reading a long novel like War and Peace.

It's legislation.  It is written in the gibberish jargon used to amend various laws.  IT is technical language on top of gibberish, in fact.

But if one does wade through the most operative provisions, what it says and seeks to accomplish is quite well known.  It's not a mystery really (even though according to Pelousy it would become understood AFTER being enacted).


----------



## dblack (Mar 28, 2012)

Polk said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Yeah... if we could buy insurance policies that covered only the things we were actually worried about, we might be able to get some decent prices on insurance.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Mar 28, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> There is tremendous competition among credit card issuers.  I can choose from hundreds of cards offering many options to suit my particular situation.
> I wish health care were that flexible.



Again, why are the credit card companies based in just a very VERY small handful of states (to my knowledge, two).  Answer that one question and we can have an adult conversation on whether or not selling across state lines is a good idea.

Or, better yet, have you ever tried to sue or otherwise dispute charges or credit reports that come from your credit card?  Take a while to research how that works.

I'm very much opposed to selling across state lines when it comes to Insurance.  I'm still waiting for you all to do the research so you can understand why.


----------



## Polk (Mar 28, 2012)

Because Delaware and South Dakota are the only states without usury statutes.


----------



## Liability (Mar 28, 2012)

Polk said:


> Because Delaware and South Dakota are the only states with usury statutes.



Wrong.

NY, for example has both civil usury laws (16%) [see, N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-501(1) and N.Y. Banking Law § 14-a(1)] and criminal usury laws (25%) [see, N.Y. Penal Law § 190.40].


----------



## Polk (Mar 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Because Delaware and South Dakota are the only states with usury statutes.
> ...



Thanks for helping me catch my typo. They're the only states *without* usury statutes.


----------



## Liability (Mar 28, 2012)

Polk said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...




Oh.

I probably should realized that.

My bad.

Sorry.


----------



## Polk (Mar 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



It's cool. I totally would have missed it without your post.


----------



## Zander (Mar 28, 2012)

The law was passed as a package and must fall as a package....

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law - latimes.com


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 28, 2012)

Zander said:


> The law was passed as a package and must fall as a package....
> 
> Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law - latimes.com



yeah basically the rest of it wont function properly without the mandate.


----------



## Liability (Mar 28, 2012)

Now, by the way, Delaware DOES have some laws concerning usury, too.

CHAPTER 23. INTEREST

But it does look like you have the facts correctly stated relative to South Dakota, Polk.

South Dakota Codified Laws


----------



## Conservative (Mar 28, 2012)

Zander said:


> The law was passed as a package and must fall as a package....
> 
> Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law - latimes.com





> "One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.





> Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.





> Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.



BarryCare is on life support, and it sounds like the SCOTUS is about ready to pull the plug.


----------



## dblack (Mar 28, 2012)

Conservative said:


> BarryCare is on life support, and it sounds like the SCOTUS is about ready to pull the plug.



Sure hope so. But I'm trying not to get my hopes up. It's very possible that Kennedy and/or Roberts are grandstanding so that when the concede it will look like they put up a good fight.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Mar 28, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > The law was passed as a package and must fall as a package....
> ...



I'd heard that the Justices had the ability to just strike down the Mandate, which makes sense.  A lot of the other stuff would fall under Federal Regulatory powers regardless.  The mandate is the one issue that is the source of most of the issues.

I do agree that without the Mandate, the whole thing falls apart.  There's a lot of very popular provisions in the law, such as the Pre-Existing clause, the No-Cap clause, etc.  But without the Mandate that would force insurance policy prices through the roof or force insurance companies out of business.

If the rest of it stays intact, then the GOP is going to be forced to run on a platform of cutting off insurance for kids and old folks by the media or just bow out to the pressure of the Single payer as the current system slowly fails.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Mar 28, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...


Strong, yes. Overbearing and interloping in our daily lives plus interfering with the marketplace? Absolutely not!
BTW, oh great one. There is huge difference between regulating and interfering.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Mar 28, 2012)

Dr.Traveler said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...


The pre-exiting condition clause makes the wheels come off. 
There is no way the cost to cover a pre -existing condition can be controlled without finding new sources of revenue. That means that taxes will have to be increased dramatically or the government will have to set up boards or panels which as in the British system decide whether a patient can or cannot have certain treatments.
In the case of NICE the British system, taxes are very high AND there are bureaucrats which decide who gets treatment and which kinds will be permitted. 
Death Panels.
Now we get to the meat and gravy of this issue...Political power...
Your quote...." the GOP is going to be forced to run on a platform of cutting off insurance for kids and old folks by the media "...
So with that sentence you admit that Obamacare is merely a tool to insure election of democrats supported by a media campaign of disinformation and political propaganda?
That's what I am reading.
Without Obamacare children and the elderly are not being 'cut off' from anything. That is why we have Medicaid and Medicare. Oh, but wait a minute. Obamacare is paid for in part by gutting Medicare and of course the administration tries to blame the GOP for that.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 28, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Half the CONZ on here think taxes are a fricking crime against humanity.  What the hell do any of them know about constitutional law?  Even less.
> 
> The commerce clause is fricking HUGE in the world of SCOTUS.
> One farmer lost his case against the fed government and told him he couldn't grow wheat on his own farm for his own use on that farm because it impacted interstate commerce, which was the domain of congress.
> ...


How old are you?  6?


----------



## Liability (Mar 28, 2012)

The best legal argument about how the NON-inclusion of a severability clause by Congress makes the entire ObamaCare Act fall if the mandate gets struck down is found here:



> Two factors demonstrate that Congress did not
> intend the individual mandate to be severable. First,
> the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R.
> 3962), which the House approved on November 7,
> ...


  -- 
http://c0391070.cdn2.cloudfiles.rac...-supreme-court-amicus-brief-florida-v-hhs.pdf


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Mar 28, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Half the CONZ on here think taxes are a fricking crime against humanity.  What the hell do any of them know about constitutional law?  Even less.
> ...



That's an insult to most 6 year olds.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Mar 28, 2012)

Dr.Traveler said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > There is tremendous competition among credit card issuers.  I can choose from hundreds of cards offering many options to suit my particular situation.
> ...


No..You did NOT explain why your opposed to selling across state lines. 
Oh, the ONLY type insurance coverage we cannot buy across state lines is HEALTH INSURANCE....It has nothing to do with state laws. The prohibition exists at the behest of the insurance companies and the complicit politicians in Washington who allowed health insurers protected markets.
And your opinion of credit card disputes is all wrong. 
I have  had false information on my credit report changed without delay. 
I have disputed two charges and they were both resolved in less than a week. 
There is a wide range of consumer protections regarding banking and credit. 
I think you need to do some research on how banking laws and laws of incorporation work.
Why incorporate in Delaware? Why Incorporate in Delaware? | Startup Lawyer
Why incorporate in South Dakota?.....Why incorporate in South Dakota
I get it. According to your side, if it's business friendly it MUST be anti consumer.....
Give me a break.


----------



## Listening (Mar 28, 2012)

francoHFW said:


> Unbelievable bullshytte. Welcome to a modern America. Where health care is guaranteed, affordable, and getting cheaper. No more 45k deaths or 750k bankruptcies (3/4 people who THOUGHT they had good insurance)...



Can't produce any names.

The average debt on those banrkuptcies used to be below the cost of a good used car.

Just posting the same talking points a chimp would post after he is given a banana.

You're a moron.

I hope they spoon feed you this stuff and don't give it to you in the form of a suppository.

Haven't backed up an argument yet.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 28, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...


You're right.  I apologize to the 6-yr olds I may have offended.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 28, 2012)

Dr.Traveler said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > How is my health insurance INTERSTATE commerce?
> ...





Polk said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



Did you really just use that as your justification?   

Insurance is a mehcanism to pay for health care coverage.

The insurance is not legally sold across state lines therefore the govt has no pervue to regulate it under the interstate commerce clause.


----------



## Polk (Mar 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> Now, by the way, Delaware DOES have some laws concerning usury, too.
> 
> CHAPTER 23. INTEREST
> 
> ...



It may just be that Delaware has such a high rate that it's like they don't have one. I didn't see anything about what the cap was in that link.


----------



## Polk (Mar 28, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



It doesn't matter that policies aren't sold across state lines. The company's tailor their products to form to local requirements. The companies themselves (Anthem, United, Kaiser Permanente) are all national firms.


----------



## Liability (Mar 28, 2012)

Polk said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Now, by the way, Delaware DOES have some laws concerning usury, too.
> ...



Try this from that link:  



> § 2301. Legal rate; loans insured by Federal Housing Administration.
> 
> (a) Any lender may charge and collect from a borrower interest at any rate agreed upon in writing *not in excess of 5% over the Federal Reserve discount rate* including any surcharge thereon, and judgments entered after May 13, 1980, shall bear interest at the rate in the contract sued upon. Where there is no expressed contract rate, *the legal rate of interest shall be 5% over the Federal Reserve discount rate* including any surcharge as of the time from which interest is due; provided, that where the time from which interest is due predates April 18, 1980, the legal rate shall remain as it was at such time.


----------



## Polk (Mar 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



But that only applies to Delaware chartered banks. I think that's where we get the conflict. Delaware has a tight cap on state-chartered banks, but no cap on federally chartered banks.


----------



## Liability (Mar 28, 2012)

Polk said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



What States put caps on FEDERALLY chartered banks' interest rates?


----------



## Polk (Mar 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I would have to look for the exact provision, but the general rule is the cap for federal chartered banks are whatever rate the state of headquarters sets. Delaware's cap specifically applies to state-chartered banks though.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 28, 2012)

Polk said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



1)  It does matter because if you aren't selling the product across state lines, also known as conducting interstate commerce, then the congress has no authority to regulate it under the interstate commerce laws.

2)  My insurance company is 100% in Massachussettes, why should congress be able to regulate me under the interstate commerce clause if my company is based here, only sells policies here, my doctors are here, and I don't leave the state for health care?


----------



## Dante (Mar 28, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Justice Kennedy has harsh questions for the govts lawyer.
> 
> Check out scotusblog
> 
> Not looking good for uncle Sam.



The Bush White House had a mandate once ... 

James Dale Guckert went by the name of Jeff Gannon, and Cheney's office gave him a White House Press pAss.







...that Log Cabin 'cum hither' expression


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 28, 2012)

Dr.Traveler said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > There is tremendous competition among credit card issuers.  I can choose from hundreds of cards offering many options to suit my particular situation.
> ...



Why are many companies headquarted in Delaware?
Who the fuck cares.?
You want to debate the issue, debate it.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 29, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Don't forget the law states that it is currently illegal for Health Insurance to be sold across state lines, which destroys the "interstate commerce clause" arguments.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 29, 2012)

obama is going to rebrand his failure as wholly a republican idea even though not one single republican voted for it.  Which is why no republican voted for it.


----------



## Meister (Mar 29, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> obama is going to rebrand his failure as wholly a republican idea even though not one single republican voted for it.  Which is why no republican voted for it.



I doubt that would be a good direction for him to go.  Most would see right through that.  It's hard to shake the term, Obamacare.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 29, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Don't forget the law states that it is currently illegal for Health Insurance to be sold across state lines, which destroys the "interstate commerce clause" arguments.



You can get an Aetna policy anywhere in the country, it just has to comply with the laws and regulations of the state where it's sold.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 29, 2012)

Dragon said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget the law states that it is currently illegal for Health Insurance to be sold across state lines, which destroys the "interstate commerce clause" arguments.
> ...



As a massachussettes resident I can not buy an Aetna policy from another state, it is illegal to do so under the law.

Hence no interstate commerce.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Mar 29, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > obama is going to rebrand his failure as wholly a republican idea even though not one single republican voted for it.  Which is why no republican voted for it.
> ...



It's exactly what they're trying to pivot to. Yesterday the whitehouse announced that this was a bipartisan bill founded in the gops belief of individual responsibility when they were questioned about the mandate. 

It's like gradeschool all over again with this bunch.


----------



## Meister (Mar 29, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Well, they did have Olympia Snow to get it going, then kicked her out.  I guess it was bipartisan.


----------



## Liability (Mar 29, 2012)

The good news is that President Obama is not worried about losing his credibility.  

Ya can't lose that which you never had.


----------



## Polk (Mar 29, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Aetna is based in Connecticut. Last time I checked, Connecticut and Massachusetts are different states.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 29, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



It was a lie that started with nancy pelosi because she got one GOP member from LA to vote for it.  One GOP member (who lost his seat in 2010) does not make it bipartisan.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 29, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Tell me...what will you do if the court finds this constitutional?
> 
> Bitch about the LIBERAL BIAS on the Supreme Court?



of course it was found Constitutional then the judges who voted for the constitutionality of the mandate would have shown a liberal bias. Is that really over your head?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Mar 29, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me...what will you do if the court finds this constitutional?
> ...



Dumb assed question of the month right there.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 29, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



what?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 29, 2012)

Dragon said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget the law states that it is currently illegal for Health Insurance to be sold across state lines, which destroys the "interstate commerce clause" arguments.
> ...



in practice there is very little competition in health insurance and very very little interstate competition. Imagine if there was no competition in automobiles? Now even a liberal can see why insurance is very very expensive. The states in effect gave near monopolies to health insurance companies.


----------



## Polk (Mar 29, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Except that the policies are interstate commerce. Conforming to local requirements doesn't change the fact that than a Connecticut firm is selling policies in Maine and Minnesota. 

I believe you've said previously that Aetna is your ensurer. Aetna is based in Connecticut.


----------



## Polk (Mar 29, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



You are really, really, REALLY misunderstanding what interstate commerce is.


----------



## Liability (Mar 29, 2012)

Polk said:


> * * * *
> 
> You are really, really, REALLY misunderstanding what interstate commerce is.



Periodically, the SCOTUS seems to have trouble with the concept, too.

But for giggles and shits, let's take a quick short-cut.



> Acts Constituting Commerce
> 
> *Whether any transaction constitutes interstate or intrastate commerce depends* on the *essential character of what is done and the surrounding circumstances.* The courts take a commonsense [sic] approach in examining the established course of business in order to distinguish where interstate commerce ends and local commerce begins. If activities that are intrastate in character have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce that their control is essential to protect commerce from being burdened, Congress may not be denied the power to exercise that control.
> 
> ...


 -- Commerce Clause legal definition of Commerce Clause. Commerce Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

And as can be accurately said of lots of different things from time to time:

the law is in a state of flux.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Mar 30, 2012)

Polk said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



It is Illegal for companies to sell policies across state lines AKA interstate.   

how do you reconcile that?



> Whether any transaction constitutes interstate or intrastate commerce depends on the essential character of what is done and the surrounding circumstances. The courts take a commonsense [sic] approach in examining the established course of business in order to distinguish where interstate commerce ends and local commerce begins. If activities that are intrastate in character have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce that their control is essential to protect commerce from being burdened, Congress may not be denied the power to exercise that control.
> 
> In 1995, for the first time in nearly 60 years, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress had exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce. In United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1995), the Court ruled 5&#8211;4 that Congress had exceeded its Commerce Clause power in enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C.A. § 921), which prohibited the possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school.
> 
> In reaching its decision, the Court took the various tests used throughout the history of the Commerce Clause to determine whether a federal statute is constitutional, and incorporated them into a new standard that specifies three categories of activity that Congress may regulate under the clause: (1) the channels of interstate commerce, (2) persons or things in interstate commerce or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and (3) activities that have "a substantial relation to interstate commerce &#8230; i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce."



How does health insurance fall into that?


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 30, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Do you have a link?  It was my understanding that not one single republican voted on it, by design so that democrats would own this totally.    When obama refers to the bill being bipartisan what he is referring to is the basis being Romenycare.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 30, 2012)

Doesn't it bother you that no one who voted on the bill read it?  That's even more troubling since the legislators made the decision in the first place.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 30, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...


Interesting how the people who whined and cried about the GOP being "The Party of No" because of their opposition to Obamacare are now trying to give the GOP credit for its creation.

Liberal dishonesty knows no bounds.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 30, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



OK, I was not wholly correct:


> Cao was the only Republican to vote for the draft Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) on November 7, 2009.[52][53] Yet Cao, because of concerns of alleged public funding for elective abortion provisions, joined the rest of his party in opposing the final version, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. [2]


Joseph Cao - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was remembering Pelosi saying it was bipartisan but that was only one vote.  The next vote he went the other way.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 30, 2012)

Polk said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



in 1789 the interesate commerce clause was  there to let the Feds promote free trade between states, then it was broadly used  for general regulation of all kinds on the assumption that all commerce was interstate directly or indirectly. Now thanks to ACA the tide may be turning back toward the intended Republican conservative use.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 30, 2012)

I moved from California to Nevada and back.  I kept the same insurance company BUT when I moved, my policy was cancelled and I had to get a new polilcy in the new state both times.  So insurance policies are not sold in interstate commerce as the policies are not portable.  To all intents and purposes it could have been separate insurance companies.


----------



## Sarah G (Mar 30, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Doesn't it bother you that no one who voted on the bill read it?  That's even more troubling since the legislators made the decision in the first place.



You don't know that, talking point king.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 30, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't it bother you that no one who voted on the bill read it?  That's even more troubling since the legislators made the decision in the first place.
> ...



Wrong.  Do you ever reconsider your entire view of the world since you're wrong so often?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7mOaPnYYA]Congressman John Conyers: "Why Read The Bill?" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Apr 2, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



There were many who voted for it that were the same way.  

Hell even Pelosi said

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU]Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Liability (Apr 2, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU&feature=player_embedded]Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It" - YouTube[/ame]

A Pelousy hall of shame all time winner.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Apr 2, 2012)

Liability said:


> Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It" - YouTube
> 
> A Pelousy hall of shame all time winner.



In other countries that would earn her a Darwin award


----------



## Foxfyre (Apr 2, 2012)

I apologize for not reading all 33 pages that this thread has already generated--I did read the OP and a good sampling of the discussion--and I apologize if these points have already been made.

It has been remarkable to me how many of the Democrats and pro-left media icons are now scrambling to distance themselves from Obamacare.  And, of course, if SCOTUS rules in favor of all  of Obamacare, that won't stop them from again proclaiming vindication in their earlier support.  What a bunch of wusses.

The other phenomenon is the new talking point--and we're seeing it put out there again and again and again--that it will be a GOOD thing for Obama if Obamacare crashes and burns in the SCOTUS ruling.  He will then no longer be blamed for it and can get on with his campaign unemcumbered by it.

It makes a person just shake his or her head, stuff hands in pockets, and wander off muttering.


----------

