If universal health care is so great...

[JakeStarkey]

Ah, name calling sure shows that you know what you are talking about. Such maturity of character. But one works with what one has. Bern, the government does not have to prove to you that the program is constitutional. You have to prove that it is not, and your opinion, to which your entitled, is not evidence. So you disagree. So what.

 

[Bern80]

Ah, name calling sure shows that you know what you are talking about. Such maturity of character. But one works with what one has. Bern, the government does not have to prove to you that the program is constitutional. You have to prove that it is not, and your opinion, to which your entitled, is not evidence. So you disagree. So what.

You just told me a negative can not be proved which proving the government CAN'T do something would be. As far as name calling goes, I don't normally, but as the record shows below, weasel, is entirely appropriate for you. Your endless changing of the subject, your demands that others provide evidence, but you don't have to, your inability to admit that you are caught in a lie, makes you a spineless, dishonest, WEASEL.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I see. You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution. The VI trumps whatever you have. Throw in the general welfare clause as well. Then you will, "What about . . .?" Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this? We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows. So what.

I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.

No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.

Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread

So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?

to which you replied....

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.

It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, in other words, you are unhappy that you can't dictate the debate. Why? Because you are more worried about 'winning' than you are about learning. Big Fitz and Yurt have the same exact problem.

But, if you want to engage, then go ahead and post your contention that the government can't do it constitutionally. You will lose, but that's OK because you might learn.

An aside: name calling means a fellow has fail in a discussion. Word to the wise.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, in other words, you are unhappy that you can't dictate the debate. Why? Because you are more worried about 'winning' than you are about learning. Big Fitz and Yurt have the same exact problem.

But, if you want to engage, then go ahead and post your contention that the government can't do it constitutionally. You will lose, but that's OK because you might learn.

Again you told me a negative can not be proven. Maybe you better just tell me what you think that means first because it appears you don't understand it. You said I am arguing an affirmative. Proving the government CAN'T do something would be a negative. Make up your fucking mind. Tell me what affirmative I am suppossed to argue or get your facts straight.

An aside: name calling means a fellow has fail in a discussion. Word to the wise.

No I haven't. I understand my opponent. I understand that you are intellectually dishonest, that you reframe discussions and speak in vagueries to avoid having to admit you're wrong and a liar. When your inconsistancies and outright lies are put right in front of your face (see below AGAIN), you avoid. Instead of trying to provide evidence for your stance you keep yours vagee and tell others what they are required to argue regardless if that is their position or what the discussion is really about. The record shows that you are one that cares more about winnng than intellectual honesty. My position has never changed. It is the same as that of the OP. That government providing health care is uncosntitutional, not whether they can discuss reform. The shortened term for that type of behavior in an honest discussion is called being a weasel.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I see. You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution. The VI trumps whatever you have. Throw in the general welfare clause as well. Then you will, "What about . . .?" Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this? We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows. So what.

I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.

No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.

Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread

So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?

to which you replied....

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.

It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.

 

[Immanuel]

At some point someone needs to call for a Constitutional Convention, which would be quicker, and could resolve ALL the myriad issues that seriously need amendments.

Not now!

We can't have Pelosi and Reid writing our next constitution!

Immie

What makes you think they would? A majority of the states would agree to a Constitutional Convention, and Congress would merely be responsible for the arrangements.

Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Because no Article V convention has ever been convened, there are many unanswered questions about how such a convention would function in practice. One major question is whether the scope of the convention's subject matter could be limited. The consensus is that Congress probably does not have the power to limit a convention, because the language of Article V leaves no discretion to Congress, merely stating that Congress "shall" call a convention when the proper number of state applications have been received.

Come on, without them we would not have HRC.

They have the power to twist arms in this country and enough power that if people don't bow to their demands to break heads.

They would write our new constitution.

Now, if we could somehow exclude all politicians from the procedure...

Immie

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, you are projecting your own inner angst for being conflicted onto me.

Go ahead, try and post your argument. I will be fair with it, fairer than you ever could be, based on your dancing and prancing here. Go ahead and post.

 

[MaggieMae]

Not now!

We can't have Pelosi and Reid writing our next constitution!

Immie

What makes you think they would? A majority of the states would agree to a Constitutional Convention, and Congress would merely be responsible for the arrangements.

Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Because no Article V convention has ever been convened, there are many unanswered questions about how such a convention would function in practice. One major question is whether the scope of the convention's subject matter could be limited. The consensus is that Congress probably does not have the power to limit a convention, because the language of Article V leaves no discretion to Congress, merely stating that Congress "shall" call a convention when the proper number of state applications have been received.

Come on, without them we would not have HRC.

They have the power to twist arms in this country and enough power that if people don't bow to their demands to break heads.

They would write our new constitution.

Now, if we could somehow exclude all politicians from the procedure...

Immie

Since it's never been done before (except for the original Constitutional Convention), there would be no governing law except the Constitution; therefore, no loopholes and no jurisdiction for Congress to usurp the powers of the states.

 

[Immanuel]

What makes you think they would? A majority of the states would agree to a Constitutional Convention, and Congress would merely be responsible for the arrangements.

Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Because no Article V convention has ever been convened, there are many unanswered questions about how such a convention would function in practice. One major question is whether the scope of the convention's subject matter could be limited. The consensus is that Congress probably does not have the power to limit a convention, because the language of Article V leaves no discretion to Congress, merely stating that Congress "shall" call a convention when the proper number of state applications have been received.

Come on, without them we would not have HRC.

They have the power to twist arms in this country and enough power that if people don't bow to their demands to break heads.

They would write our new constitution.

Now, if we could somehow exclude all politicians from the procedure...

Immie

Since it's never been done before (except for the original Constitutional Convention), there would be no governing law except the Constitution; therefore, no loopholes and no jurisdiction for Congress to usurp the powers of the states.

True, they could write their own tickets and would do so.

They would not have the good of the country at heart. They would have what benefits them first and foremost on their minds as they are so damned corrupt that it isn't even funny and by that statement I am not only speaking about Reid and Pelosi but the whole kit 'n' kiboodle in Washington.

Immie

 

[Bern80]

Bern, in other words, you are unhappy that you can't dictate the debate. Why? Because you are more worried about 'winning' than you are about learning. Big Fitz and Yurt have the same exact problem.

But, if you want to engage, then go ahead and post your contention that the government can't do it constitutionally. You will lose, but that's OK because you might learn.

An aside: name calling means a fellow has fail in a discussion. Word to the wise.

I stated it in the precious post. When you can respond to your lies below like a grown up get back to me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I see. You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution. The VI trumps whatever you have. Throw in the general welfare clause as well. Then you will, "What about . . .?" Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this? We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows. So what.

I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.

No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.

Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread

So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?

to which you replied....

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.

It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, post your argument. Understand that I responded to your nonsense with the VI. You are not an expert on the Constitution. Until you understand you have to play it right, you fail.

 

[Charles_Main]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.

What is unconstitutional about Obamacare is mandating you buy anything Just because you are alive, and stop with the "they make us get Car Insurance crap" Because they do not make you own a car, and it is states that make you have it not the fed. Obamacare makes you buy something from a private company or pay a penalty for not, and that my friends is a clear violation of the constitution and Abuse of Federal Power.


Who cares if it is for a noble Idea. Every time you bend over and take a slight to the constitution in the name of some noble Idea. The constitution dies a little more. Soon they will not respect any of it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.

What is unconstitutional about Obamacare is mandating you buy anything Just because you are alive, and stop with the "they make us get Car Insurance crap" Because they do not make you own a car, and it is states that make you have it not the fed. Obamacare makes you buy something from a private company or pay a penalty for not, and that my friends is a clear violation of the constitution and Abuse of Federal Power.


Who cares if it is for a noble Idea. Every time you bend over and take a slight to the constitution in the name of some noble Idea. The constitution dies a little more. Soon they will not respect any of it.

Thank you, Charles. The car insurance argument, I agree, is very weak. However, government mandates that you buy Medicare and Medicaid through your taxes: no choice about it. HC is better than that: you don't have to buy it if you don't want. However, your tax share will be adjusted to help pay for those who do need it. SCOTUS, I don't think, will find that unconstitutional.

 

[Immanuel]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.

What is unconstitutional about Obamacare is mandating you buy anything Just because you are alive, and stop with the "they make us get Car Insurance crap" Because they do not make you own a car, and it is states that make you have it not the fed. Obamacare makes you buy something from a private company or pay a penalty for not, and that my friends is a clear violation of the constitution and Abuse of Federal Power.


Who cares if it is for a noble Idea. Every time you bend over and take a slight to the constitution in the name of some noble Idea. The constitution dies a little more. Soon they will not respect any of it.

Thank you, Charles. The car insurance argument, I agree, is very weak. However, government mandates that you buy Medicare and Medicaid through your taxes: no choice about it. HC is better than that: you don't have to buy it if you don't want. However, your tax share will be adjusted to help pay for those who do need it. SCOTUS, I don't think, will find that unconstitutional.

Medicare and Medicaid are not private organizations they are simply the name of a different kind of taxing philosophy.

I have no problem supplying health insurance to the needy. I do have a problem with the Federal government controlling the Health Insurance industry and making our decisions for us and that is exactly where this bill is leading.

Immie

 

[JakeStarkey]

Regulation of industry at the national level began 123 years ago because business failed to understand that if they deal in the public interest they are subject to public policy.

The insurance industry brought this upon itself.

 

[Oddball]

You tell 'em, Uncle Leon!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dude is channeling Robert Welch!

 

[Oddball]

No more than you're channeling Trotsky.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dude, you don't even know the difference between Trotsy and Lenin. For that matter, neither do I. And if you do, then why do you have such a hard time understanding the Constitution?

 

[Oddball]

Funny statement to come from someone who can't tell his ass from a hot rock.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, that is what I thought.

Dude, you are part of America's social compact, even if you don't want to be.

That's reality, and it does not matter if you don't like it.