RE: Constitutionality of ACA

RE: Constitutionality of ACA (Full Version)

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

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/6/2012 4:16:43 PM)
LOL, pathetic. You hispeekie englitch? No amount of your squirming can show your now willful lies for anything else. D'oh!!!!! Where's my favorite 3/5ths of a squaw? Or wait, is it 3/10ths?

Musicmystery -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/6/2012 8:14:08 PM)
quote: This change caused by Obama Actually no. It's been a problem for quite some time, and Congress has been aware of it, but unsure what to do about it. So they didn't do anything.

Real0ne -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/6/2012 9:21:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Ok. Simple. Medicare is supported by taxes, taxes that are only collected if you engage in commerce. Obamacare is supported by a mandate that is collected if you breath. Are you listening? Show me one person who isn't plugged into 'commerce'. this country was the business adventure of the king so its laws are centered around commerce your unlienable rights be damned! Show me one person who knows how THEY did it! I can show you many people who are not plugged into it, does not matter however they still construe you as being it. The right of conquest. get it? slave? Do you know what commerce is? Does not appear so.

Real0ne -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/6/2012 9:57:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne what are you talking about, its not a secured debt NOW either the gubafia can or cannot force you to buy their products. if they can you have no fucking rights at all zippo, if they cant you have rights. that is the REAL issue at stake here they do not want talked about Is vehicle liability insurance mandatory in your State? Is it constitutional? The ORGANIC constitution?

Real0ne -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/6/2012 10:08:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The 14th did quite substantially change the Constitution. Section 1 applies the Bill of Rights to the states and makes clear that people are citizens of the USA not citizens of the indivual states. EVERY FUCKING THING IS "CON" STITUTIONAL! think not? Think again, you will find records proving it exists but none proving it was ever changed. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/constitution/13thAmendment1a.jpg[/image] [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/constitution/13thAmendment2a.jpg[/image] [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/constitution/13thAmendment3a.jpg[/image] [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/constitution/13thAmendment4a.jpg[/image] vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/constitution/13thAmendment5a.jpg[/image] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yep there is that pesky fucking no british in office 13th amendmend signed fucking sealed and delivered! Oh and there it is signed sealed and delivcered that america adopted the laws of england, good thing we are FREE huh? [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/constitution/13thAmendment6a.jpg[/image] Even magically changing it presto shazamo. Where is that original 13th? Just like the venerable 14th. That the Utah supreme proved that it was and is unconstitutional and went right up to it but did not say it. YEH! Dats what I'm talkin bout. Its any fucking thing goes and if you dont like it you will be thrown in jail and if you still dont like it the key will be thrown away. See that amendment was made to keep the fucking british bastards like the one sitting in the oval office the fuck out of there. Yours truly, Lower canada.

Real0ne -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/6/2012 10:41:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Still no. The core Consitution provdes the blessing of liberty to all citizens. The 14 Amendment is famous for its "citizenship clause" which gave citizenship to all natural born regardless of race. You'll note that has nothing to do with the core article Tim referenced. But, it had everything to do with reinforcing the blessing of liberty article to all citizens that was (an article) already in the core Constituion and now with these amendments all races can be citizens. So, again, it added to an existing core article but did not change any article. In other words, there is no article in the Constitution that says "only whites can be citizens and share in the blessing of liberty" and that would have to be true in order for the 14th amendment to actually have changed the core Constitution. Additionally, as far as Tim's commerce article refernced in the Core Constituion goes, it is unchanged since all are free now (with the 13th Amendment) and it applies to everyone in the taxation context. (but does not apply to a mandate btw). No the 14th had one purpose and that was to get jurisdiction over the slaves. People use todays abortion for syntax to apply to and determine what a document written over 200 years ago is supposed to mean. They should know better. To be set free means to have the yoke removed, in other words exchange chains for a collar and indoctrinated into the kings vassal club. The fucking assholeocracy have this either you are in iron chains or chains of contract or you will be disposed of when they declare (war on you) and you are to be assasinated. Like tax protestors who get too popular and other no good riff raf and enemies of the mob, errrm I mean state. Chains of contract means you are UNDER the control of the king regardless if it a real one or a ficticious deMOBcracy where 51% will ALWAYS trample your fucking rights or drive you into bankruptcy in the courts if you resist. I posted the ponds case stating that my rights do not originate from the 14th and I alsop posted Utah supreme court Dyett v. Turner case showing the 14th was in fact unconstitutional in the first place. As you can see above we have a 13th that majically disappeared. It was intedended to prevent exactly what has happened and that is to prevent a fucking no count brit from ever being at the helm of this country.

Real0ne -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/6/2012 10:47:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The 14th did quite substantially change the Constitution. Section 1 applies the Bill of Rights to the states and makes clear that people are citizens of the USA not citizens of the individual states. no ken it means that CERTAIN PEOPLE are citizens of the us, not USA. get it straight man. I am not a 14th amendment citizen yet I am an american ciitizen. figger that one out LMAO

Real0ne -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/6/2012 10:48:45 PM)
Sure ahhuh of course quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: It's because we are broke, we are very broke and we will be broke for a long time. Hardly. U.S. assets top $188 trillion. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/fed%20reserve/UNITEDKINGDOMDEBTMAP1.jpg[/image] the kings club is fucking broke! LOL

Real0ne -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/6/2012 10:57:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds I think part of the reason the Conservatives were so weird in their arguments against Obamacare is that it either is constitutional, or a lot of other things are not. Go ahead and try to find any argument against Obamacare that doesn't apply equally to Medicare. A supreme court ruling that threatened Medicare (and I'd be tempted to file suit to get out of paying that tax just for the political points) would end the Republican party... congratulations you are the only person on this board who got it right. That is precisely the root issue here. they sell us one package with the usual hidden agenda. It works on the tards every time. There are shit loads of other "services" that the gubafia forces down our throats against the will of the people that would now become subject to suit. No one here got to vote on ohaha care, so much for "by the people" if it passes then it means the gubafia can in fact force you to buy their services. and who is cheering for it the loudest? all the brits on the board LMAO

PatrickG38 -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/7/2012 7:48:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Sure ahhuh of course quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: It's because we are broke, we are very broke and we will be broke for a long time. Hardly. U.S. assets top $188 trillion. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/fed%20reserve/UNITEDKINGDOMDEBTMAP1.jpg[/image] the kings club is fucking broke! LOL What a great chart. It shows the clearly that high public debt has no direct correlation to prosperity.

Real0ne -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/7/2012 9:41:14 AM)
criminal governments with self granted immunity always prosper, they have the guns and troughers justify and even condone their use. What do you think will happen when its time to PAY that debt thats been running since the creation of the crown and the east india company? when there are no more lands to conquer and pillage? iraq If there isnt a hidden agenda then tell us how the present 13th got slipped in there without any records? We cant even trust our own constitution yet people would believe this is on the level? Did you vote on it? Hows the WE part of people working for ya?

SoftBonds -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/7/2012 10:11:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Sure ahhuh of course quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: It's because we are broke, we are very broke and we will be broke for a long time. Hardly. U.S. assets top $188 trillion. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/fed%20reserve/UNITEDKINGDOMDEBTMAP1.jpg[/image] the kings club is fucking broke! LOL Actually, that chart looks very reasonable to me. If you look at corporations by asset valuation, you will find that the companies whose assets are worth more have, on average, more debt than the companies whose assets are worth less. US, Canadian, European, Japanese, and Aussie workers are able to earn more from their labor, and those nations have a larger industrial base, so they have assets that are more valuable, and can borrow more money against those assets. In a perfect world that debt in incurred to pay for capital improvements with a value to the future generations that will pay that debt, for example the Road and Infrastructure improvements Obama got in 2009, as opposed to paying to lower taxes for a current generation, or to pay for a war (not that I'm complaining about 2 presidents in particular here). If you told me the US was going to borrow an extra trillion dollars this year, and spend it all on capital improvements, both to repair the most broken parts of our infrastructure (bridges come to mind, as do certain flood walls), and to make improvements with a high future value (nuclear plants, solar panel development, R&D, education to make our workers more productive), I would support it completely, because I would understand that the improvements would pay us back with interest, and that they would benefit those who would have to pay the bill. Edit: Sorry New Zealand, meant to include you Kiwi's too. Gosh, there are a lot of nations in the "rich," world, aren't there. Oh, wait, South Korea too, sorry Koreans, hard to see you on that map at my screen resolution.

SoftBonds -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/7/2012 10:14:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: If you are in the service of providing healthcare, and you cannot do that and make a profit, then get get the fuck out of that business, you're no good at it. Are we talking about insurance companies or healthcare providers? I can no longer tell. If you are talking about insurance companies then they do not provide healthcare, they pay some of the bills to prevent you from going bankrupt if you get real sick. If you are talking about healthcare providers, they are being squeezed by Goverment Medicare and Medicaid payments lower than the cost of providing healthcare, only to take money from Medicare and Medicaid and give it to Obamacare to help make that appear sustainable. That should stop now and reverse next year when Obama is fired. your record of being correct is abysmal..you should be more careful with your "claims" of fact when it is all posturing and wishful thinking. When insurance has the ability to deny your claim for healthcare that they consider you dont need, despite what a HCP thinks.it renders your point below that of hilarity and barely above ignorance. Why I think we should get insurance from a healthcare provider. Not only does it cut out the middleman, but it saves money in hiring an extra doctor to deny claims, and the hospital should have little trouble proving to itself that I am in fact the person they agreed to cover. Of course, the folks who disagree will send me mail instead of disagreeing here, cause they don't want that argument out in public...

Lucylastic -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/7/2012 10:24:14 AM)
OH at least they respond to you, most of the screamers have me on ignore as Im a feminazi apparently. Make stupid claims then havent got the testicular fortitude to handle disagreement

SoftBonds -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/7/2012 10:31:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic OH at least they respond to you, most of the screamers have me on ignore as Im a feminazi apparently. Make stupid claims then havent got the testicular fortitude to handle disagreement After the number of mails on CM proper I got regarding hospitals providing health insurance, You'd think I had shot someone. Note, multiple messages per person, before I replied... I figured out pretty quickly that at least one of them was in the insurance industry though... We started talking statistics, and he didn't think about the fact that other than my profession and actuarial services there are not many folks who understand the language... Worst thing was he was arguing that there were not enough actuaries for my plan-but if you take them out of the health insurance companies, you can hire them right back at the hospitals to set the rates there instead. All you do is remove the middleman and a lot of inefficiency.

Real0ne -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/7/2012 11:13:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds Why I think we should get insurance from a healthcare provider. Not only does it cut out the middleman, but it saves money in hiring an extra doctor to deny claims, and the hospital should have little trouble proving to itself that I am in fact the person they agreed to cover. Of course, the folks who disagree will send me mail instead of disagreeing here, cause they don't want that argument out in public... why not simply get real PAYING jobs so we can AFFORD to PAY for it out of pocket the gubafia is the middleman here forcing ALL this crap upon us.

PatrickG38 -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/7/2012 11:44:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds Why I think we should get insurance from a healthcare provider. Not only does it cut out the middleman, but it saves money in hiring an extra doctor to deny claims, and the hospital should have little trouble proving to itself that I am in fact the person they agreed to cover. Of course, the folks who disagree will send me mail instead of disagreeing here, cause they don't want that argument out in public... why not simply get real PAYING jobs so we can AFFORD to PAY for it out of pocket the gubafia is the middleman here forcing ALL this crap upon us. About .1% of the jobs in the country pay enough to allow someone to afford to pay out of pocket for non-routine care. Do you have any idea what hospitalization, surgical, chemotherapy, radiation, nursing home and other things cost? The idea that almost anyone can afford these items out of pocket is ludicrous and reveals lack of seriousness.

SoftBonds -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/7/2012 11:49:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PatrickG38 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds Why I think we should get insurance from a healthcare provider. Not only does it cut out the middleman, but it saves money in hiring an extra doctor to deny claims, and the hospital should have little trouble proving to itself that I am in fact the person they agreed to cover. Of course, the folks who disagree will send me mail instead of disagreeing here, cause they don't want that argument out in public... why not simply get real PAYING jobs so we can AFFORD to PAY for it out of pocket the gubafia is the middleman here forcing ALL this crap upon us. About .1% of the jobs in the country pay enough to allow someone to afford to pay out of pocket for non-routine care. Do you have any idea what hospitalization, surgical, chemotherapy, radiation, nursing home and other things cost? The idea that almost anyone can afford these items out of pocket is ludicrous and reveals lack of seriousness. The idea that even the 1% would choose to pay such costs out of pocket instead of paying for insurance is pretty ludicrous too...

truckinslave -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/7/2012 3:07:08 PM)
Simple majority, bud.

Musicmystery -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/7/2012 4:40:01 PM)
quote: why not simply get real PAYING jobs so we can AFFORD to PAY for it out of pocket I don't know why more poor people don't just do that. If they would simply earn six figures instead, all would be well.

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875