RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

truckinslave -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/1/2011 4:19:34 PM)

You are aware that there are millions of people who quite legally do not have auto insurance?
To need auto insurance, one must take at least three entirely voluntary actions:
1. Get a drivers license.
2. Buy/borrow a car.
3. Drive said car on the public highways.
To need 0bama0Care health insurance, one only needs to breathe.

Big difference. It's unconstitutional. It's unfunded. It's going to defeat 0bama0 if it is still alive next year. 0bama0s best hope, and it's admittedly Hobsonian, is that it dies quickly.



Elisabella -> RE: This just in re 0bamaCare (2/1/2011 4:26:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

I guess your exactitude doesnt extend to math.


So to summarize:

MM: Reagan destroyed the economy in eight years.
WBUD: Nah bro, he destroyed it in four.



Elisabella -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/1/2011 4:28:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

You are aware that there are millions of people who quite legally do not have auto insurance?
To need auto insurance, one must take at least three entirely voluntary actions:
1. Get a drivers license.
2. Buy/borrow a car.
3. Drive said car on the public highways.
To need 0bama0Care health insurance, one only needs to breathe.

Big difference. It's unconstitutional. It's unfunded. It's going to defeat 0bama0 if it is still alive next year. 0bama0s best hope, and it's admittedly Hobsonian, is that it dies quickly.


I agree completely.

If Obama's view of progressivism is to mandate private commerce, he does not have my vote.



mnottertail -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/1/2011 5:14:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
Are you just %100 mistaken, or deliberately just making shit up?
The time to challenge standing is before discovery.
That ship has sailed. 


Not so, he is not making shit up, and he is 100% correct.

locus standi can be examined at any court, so here we got a guy from district court who says its unconstitional, so appeal it, it goes to federal court, the first thing they are going to do is see if the plantiffs have met the federal locus standi.

and so on, all the way up. 



mnottertail -> RE: This just in re 0bamaCare (2/1/2011 5:17:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Whistling along, strolling past the graveyard of 0bama0Care.
Theater my not inconsiderable ass. 


Well, it is theater, because the rant by the district judge will not stand under any circumstance, ignoring the doctrine and years and years (100s, I recon) of precedent of severability as he did.

This legislation from the bench attempt will be struck (and laughed) down.

You may be a considerable ass, my good man, but you are a not right considerable ass in this matter.



Musicmystery -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/1/2011 5:43:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Are you just %100 mistaken, or deliberately just making shit up?

The time to challenge standing is before discovery.
That ship has sailed. 



You'd better explain that to the feds. 'Cause that's where it's going next.



Musicmystery -> RE: This just in re 0bamaCare (2/1/2011 5:52:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

I guess your exactitude doesnt extend to math.


So to summarize:

MM: Reagan destroyed the economy in eight years.
WBUD: Nah bro, he destroyed it in four.

[:D]



MrRodgers -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/1/2011 6:39:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

LOL always the same thing. People point out the obvious to you..and you run right past it.


Mirror mirror. I pointed out the obvious to you and you go into contortions to dispute it.

Federal law - constitution
State law - not preempted by Federal law, eg auto insurance.

Its that simple and no matter how many pages of utter gibberish you write it doesnt change the fact that this is how responsibility for legislation is allocated.

I am still reading this shit. ANY insurance...repeat ANY insurance mandated by ANY state or the fed is a mandate to fucking buy insurance...period. If ANY of it is constitutional it is ALL constitutional.

BUT health care investors are not worried. The capitalist fascist otherwise known as the right wing judges on the SCOTUS will rule to make sure that the true American political values shine through...a profit.

Oh, and BTW, I am not worried either. I will drop my health care insurance and in true capitalist form...let all you free-market [sic] private premium payers...pay for it. Somebody does.



MrRodgers -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/1/2011 6:58:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

You are aware that there are millions of people who quite legally do not have auto insurance?
To need auto insurance, one must take at least three entirely voluntary actions:
1. Get a drivers license.
2. Buy/borrow a car.
3. Drive said car on the public highways.
To need 0bama0Care health insurance, one only needs to breathe.

Big difference. It's unconstitutional. It's unfunded. It's going to defeat 0bama0 if it is still alive next year. 0bama0s best hope, and it's admittedly Hobsonian, is that it dies quickly.

Funny how for millions of people in dozens of countries, all one need to do for health care, insured by govt. mandate...is breathe. They are breathing easier for about 3-4 years longer, healthier and at 1/2 the cost.



tazzygirl -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/1/2011 8:13:45 PM)

Amazing how South Korea got it right within 12 years.



defiantbadgirl -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/1/2011 10:20:47 PM)

I will never understand how anyone who doesn't work in the crooked for-profit health insurance industry can be against single-payer. They must like taking the chance of losing everything they own once their insurance company refuses to pay. They must like the idea that if they're married, they might be forced to divorce their spouse to qualify for medicaid. Better to pay more for health insurance, lose everything, and be forced to divorce than to pay for someone else's health care. God forbid. They think people who live in countries with single-payer die because of waiting lists when the truth is, single-payer will pay another country to perform surgery if the condition is life threatening. The only death panels are those set up by the health insurance industry.



Knightwalker -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/1/2011 10:47:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
To need 0bama0Care health insurance, one only needs to breathe.


And to become poor, homeless and near-death, one only needs to get sick without the proper insurance.

Oh wait, that already happens.....a lot.



Knightwalker -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/1/2011 10:52:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

I will never understand how anyone who doesn't work in the crooked for-profit health insurance industry can be against single-payer. They must like taking the chance of losing everything they own once their insurance company refuses to pay. They must like the idea that if they're married, they might be forced to divorce their spouse to qualify for medicaid. Better to pay more for health insurance, lose everything, and be forced to divorce than to pay for someone else's health care. God forbid. They think people who live in countries with single-payer die because of waiting lists when the truth is, single-payer will pay another country to perform surgery if the condition is life threatening. The only death panels are those set up by the health insurance industry.


Come on now. Don't go trying to bring logic and rational thought into this. You should see by the last few pages that logic and rational thought don't live here.



DomYngBlk -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/2/2011 5:08:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

You are aware that there are millions of people who quite legally do not have auto insurance?
To need auto insurance, one must take at least three entirely voluntary actions:
1. Get a drivers license.
2. Buy/borrow a car.
3. Drive said car on the public highways.
To need 0bama0Care health insurance, one only needs to breathe.

Big difference. It's unconstitutional. It's unfunded. It's going to defeat 0bama0 if it is still alive next year. 0bama0s best hope, and it's admittedly Hobsonian, is that it dies quickly.


I agree completely.

If Obama's view of progressivism is to mandate private commerce, he does not have my vote.


He's not trying to regulate commerce. He is trying to find the best way to get people that don't have coverage, coverage. And do this within a political system that has many people in it that are not concerned about the health of their fellow countrymen. In fact, they are hoping those countrymen actually do die. If you want to add your name to that list so be it.

Should a single payer system for universal health care be in place? Yes. But as of now the votes can't be had to get it passed.



KenDckey -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/2/2011 9:18:58 AM)

One of the ways that I see this question is if the Congress, citing the commerce clause, so decided, using this as a precidence, could direct every purchase in our lives thru mandates.  What difference does it make whether it is healthcare, auto purchase, home purchase, or what we eat?   it is all commerce



willbeurdaddy -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/2/2011 9:21:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I am still reading this shit. ANY insurance...repeat ANY insurance mandated by ANY state or the fed is a mandate to fucking buy insurance...period. If ANY of it is constitutional it is ALL constitutional.



Another one with no clue about Federal powers vs State powers.



DomYngBlk -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/2/2011 10:09:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

One of the ways that I see this question is if the Congress, citing the commerce clause, so decided, using this as a precidence, could direct every purchase in our lives thru mandates.  What difference does it make whether it is healthcare, auto purchase, home purchase, or what we eat?   it is all commerce


Sure they could. Just as they could declear martial law tomorrow....but it isn't going to happen.



DomYngBlk -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/2/2011 10:13:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I am still reading this shit. ANY insurance...repeat ANY insurance mandated by ANY state or the fed is a mandate to fucking buy insurance...period. If ANY of it is constitutional it is ALL constitutional.



Another one with no clue about Federal powers vs State powers.


Thats right wilbur, its the rest of the world that is fucked up. you are fine. lol...dumbshit



willbeurdaddy -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/2/2011 4:36:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I am still reading this shit. ANY insurance...repeat ANY insurance mandated by ANY state or the fed is a mandate to fucking buy insurance...period. If ANY of it is constitutional it is ALL constitutional.



Now that I have a few extra mintues, let me dumb it down to your level.

Constitution:

Dear Federal Government, you have purview over and can regulate/legislate in areas A, B, C. If you step into anything that is not specifically A,B,C it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


Dear Anyone other than the Federal Government: The Feds can tell you what to do regarding A, B, C. I don't care what you do in any other area that I am silent on.


So in the context of your nonsensical statement, mandatory health care insurance is NOT in the Constitution. A FEDERAL law to that effect is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Citing the Commerce Clause (which regulates INTERSTATE COMMERCE) as making mandatory health insurance part of the Constitution is particularly asinine because it is the Federal government itself that says that health insurance CANNOT be sold interstate.

But STATE mandatory health insurance (or auto insurance) is NOT in the Constitution, and a State can do whatever it wants in those areas.

Got it?



Musicmystery -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (2/2/2011 4:42:22 PM)

Well, dumbed down.....it's dumb.

Congress makes a wide range of laws not mentioned in the Constitution. Now, the Constitution spells out a few they can't....but your characterization is inaccurate.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.296875E-02