TimC Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 This thread is so full of lies, deception and B.S. that all of you should be ashamed of yourself. Clearly the Klingons time-traveled back to the 1700's and gave Sacrebleu that phrase. Please stop making fools of yourself now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Isn't that exactly what insurance is? Other people paying for other people? All we are asking for now is that healthy people pay those bills. People who do not even need coverage. How does changing who pays bring down the cost of health care? IT DOES NOT!!! Pools of risk... you are restating my point. Do you understand this? Do you understand why the cost goes down with increases in size? I think it is best if you answer this question. Um....yes, right. Sorry, discussing something with you is much the same as hitting oneself on the head with a hammer. It hurts, so I'll stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Right but nobody does that. The Federal Government is arguing that they have the authority to do so under the Commerce Clause. They've lost the argument. As have you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 On the plus side, at least we won't have to listen to conservatives droning on about activist judges any more now that they've got their own. Well, yeah, I guess we will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 On the plus side, at least we won't have to listen to conservatives droning on about activist judges any more now that they've got their own. Well, yeah, I guess we will. An activist Judge ignores the Constitution. This Judge upheld it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 An activist Judge ignores the Constitution. This Judge upheld it. Oh really? That is a matter of opinion, is it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 seems fitting unconstitutional president passes unconstitutional health care bill maybe that why the law was put in there ya think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Oh really? That is a matter of opinion, is it not? Here's Obama's opinion: “I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Here's Obama's opinion: So the fact that the judge decides to slam Obama at the end of his ruling is a testiment to his lack of agenda? I'd like to see the entirety of the context there. It may very well be that more information changed his opinion on how to solve the staggering problem of the insured forced to fund the uninsured. He may have reached the conclusion that unless we are to simply refuse care for the uninsured (bsically 'culling the herd'), the mandate was necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 So the fact that the judge decides to slam Obama at the end of his ruling is a testiment to his lack of agenda? I'd like to see the entirety of the context there. It may very well be that more information changed his opinion on how to solve the staggering problem of the insured forced to fund the uninsured. He may have reached the conclusion that unless we are to simply refuse care for the uninsured (bsically 'culling the herd'), the mandate was necessary. It's so wonderful that seemingly this judge knows everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I think it's a little funny and a little sad that very few folks embrace the fact that this judge is saying: "Congress can pass a healthcare bill, but it has to pass one that's within it's constitutional directive. We should try to keep them within their defined bounds. Mandating that people buy insurance is not within their bounds" Do the people that are upset with this ruling care whether or not Congress lives within it's bounds? Because the only way to keep them there when they won't do it themselves is to challenge things in court. These elected officials are voting on documents that are thousands of pages long that they have not read. For or against, that's insane...although I would generally favor against in that situation as no law passed is better than one with a bunch of power that nobody really understands. Maybe, rather than just trying to jam a law of this importance through in such a short time frame, some time should be taken to make sure that it's well designed and actually legal in and of itself? And I don't post this as being against such a law. I know that we are somehow paying for all of this healthcare now. I'm in favor of a fix in some form. Not necessarily this fix, but again...if it were well thought out, I knew that the people voting on it had a thorough understanding, and there was enough public discussion on it so that the people knew what this major change to the rest of their lives was going to be then I would have a much easier time accepting and perhaps even being on board with such a law. I favor less gov't control as a general rule, but all situations of this gravity deserve individual analysis much more than they deserve a blanket application of philosophical principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Since nobody in America is denied healthcare due to inability to pay, which means that we all pay for it all anyway, it's unconstituional to make individuals pay for a portion of that in advance? Well that logic is clearly seameless. Freedom sounds a lot like a child's untreated whopping cough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Since nobody in America is denied healthcare due to inability to pay, which means that we all pay for it all anyway, it's unconstituional to make individuals pay for a portion of that in advance? Well that logic is clearly seameless. Freedom sounds a lot like a child's untreated whopping cough. The poor, poor, children... Think of them... And the old people, the poor, poor old people, what with their bursitis, gout, false teeth and arthritic joints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Since nobody in America is denied healthcare due to inability to pay, which means that we all pay for it all anyway, it's unconstituional to make individuals pay for a portion of that in advance? Well that logic is clearly seameless. Freedom sounds a lot like a child's untreated whopping cough. If constitutional protections against the government overstepping it's bounds don't make sense to you, then start an effort to draw up a new one that does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) If constitutional protections against the government overstepping it's bounds don't make sense to you, then start an effort to draw up a new one that does. Oh okay. I love you some of you guys think you have a better understanding and interpretation of the Congress with those who have a different one. I thought liberals were supposed to be elitist and arrogant? If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain... If you choose to not buy health insurance, then by the entire definition of the words "making a decision" you are not being passive at all. Rather, you are actively choosing to risk a future health emergency that will cause providers to pass higher costs on to people who do buy insurance. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. Sure, tea in colonial times, affordable health insurance today, it's all the same. Logic FAIL. Edited February 1, 2011 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Speaking of poor people and health... I was getting my blood test done at LabCorp and they were asking for a debit/credit card and you had to sign a form that you may be charged up to $20.00 on it if your insurance info doesn't come through. Seems reasonable to me. You should've heard the broke-ass Democrats up in there complaining about that while talking on their free Government-supported cell phones after driving up in their brand new car. Most didn't have a credit card, a few were in someone else's name (huh?) and these people didn't even comprehend a checking account that give you a debit card. The sooner we start killing poor people, the better. If you're too broke to come up with a $20.00 security deposit, then you're hopeless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 Speaking of poor people and health... I was getting my blood test done at LabCorp and they were asking for a debit/credit card and you had to sign a form that you may be charged up to $20.00 on it if your insurance info doesn't come through. Seems reasonable to me. You should've heard the broke-ass Democrats up in there complaining about that while talking on their free Government-supported cell phones after driving up in their brand new car. Most didn't have a credit card, a few were in someone else's name (huh?) and these people didn't even comprehend a checking account that give you a debit card. The sooner we start killing poor people, the better. If you're too broke to come up with a $20.00 security deposit, then you're hopeless. Couldnt agree more... I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) How can I get one of them goverment cell phones? Edited February 1, 2011 by moneymakers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 How can I get one of them goverment cell phones? Here's the ballot you have to fill out: [x] Obama, Pelosi, Reid [_] Reality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Oh okay. I love you some of you guys think you have a better understanding and interpretation of the Congress with those who have a different one. I thought liberals were supposed to be elitist and arrogant? Yeah, because I was the one who judged the law unconstitutional Oh...wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Oh okay. I love you some of you guys think you have a better understanding and interpretation of the Congress with those who have a different one. I thought liberals were supposed to be elitist and arrogant? If you choose to not buy health insurance, then by the entire definition of the words "making a decision" you are not being passive at all. Rather, you are actively choosing to risk a future health emergency that will cause providers to pass higher costs on to people who do buy insurance. Sure, tea in colonial times, affordable health insurance today, it's all the same. Logic FAIL. Do you post on other websites using a different name? Weird - I found the exact comments you made word for word above on a different site. Weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) Here's the ballot you have to fill out: [x] Obama, Pelosi, Reid [_] Reality So sell my soul to the mighty anti one and I get a free cell phone? and Bushwacky still on the wacky stuff caught again, Maybe a little rehab for you might help Edited February 1, 2011 by moneymakers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) If constitutional protections against the government overstepping it's bounds don't make sense to you, then start an effort to draw up a new one that does. Which part? You guys crack me up. This isn't a bill of rights issue, which restricts governmental power. Here, we're talking about a part of the Constitution that affirmatively grants Congress wide powers to "regulate Commerce... among the several states." Question: which section of the Constitution prohibits the government from making people pay for services they consume? Answer: the section you're imagining. Look, it get it: you don't like the law. You think it's unfair. If offends your traditional notions of small government and individualism. But that isn't the litmus test for what is or is not "unconstitutional." Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't address this issue. That means the judicial system will be tasked with job. Therefore, whatever result unfolds will be the result of "judicial activism." This is merely YOUR brand of judicial activism. So please don't piss on my shoes and tell me its raining. Edited February 1, 2011 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Speaking of poor people and health... I was getting my blood test done at LabCorp and they were asking for a debit/credit card and you had to sign a form that you may be charged up to $20.00 on it if your insurance info doesn't come through. Seems reasonable to me. You should've heard the broke-ass Democrats up in there complaining about that while talking on their free Government-supported cell phones after driving up in their brand new car. Most didn't have a credit card, a few were in someone else's name (huh?) and these people didn't even comprehend a checking account that give you a debit card. The sooner we start killing poor people, the better. If you're too broke to come up with a $20.00 security deposit, then you're hopeless. Don't blame me - I voted for the Death Panels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Which part? You guys crack me up. This isn't a bill of rights issue, which restricts governmental power. Here, we're talking about a part of the Constitution that affirmatively grants Congress wide powers to "regulate Commerce... among the several states." Question: which section of the Constitution prohibits the government from making people pay for services they consume? Answer: the section you're imagining. Look, it get it: you don't like the law. You think it's unfair. If offends your traditional notions of small government and individualism. But that isn't the litmus test for what is or is not "unconstitutional." Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't address this issue. That means the judicial system will be tasked with job. Therefore, whatever result unfolds will be the result of "judicial activism." This is merely YOUR brand of judicial activism. So please don't piss on my shoes and tell me its raining. Oh okay. I love you some of you guys think you have a better understanding and interpretation of the Congress with those who have a different one. I thought liberals were supposed to be elitist and arrogant? If you choose to not buy health insurance, then by the entire definition of the words "making a decision" you are not being passive at all. Rather, you are actively choosing to risk a future health emergency that will cause providers to pass higher costs on to people who do buy insurance. Sure, tea in colonial times, affordable health insurance today, it's all the same. Logic FAIL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.