call me kooky, but isn't that gov't intervention...? I thought that was a bad thing...
Go read the constitution again.
There is nothing wrong with states, or the people ENACTING A RIGHT THAT HAS BEEN RESERVED SPECIFICALLY TO THEM.
If the people want government intervention, then so be it.
Obviously, i'm of the opinion it should be done sparingly.
In this case you are talking about a "market" that has been mostly cornered by large interests, that in all probability have colluded to perform the same types of nearly-fraudulent behavior en masse.
What is NOT, and should NEVER be acceptable is an outright subversion of the constitution, and especially never simply JUST BECAUSE IT FITS YOUR POLITICAL BENT OR PERSONAL MOTIVES:
Here, look how far i had to look to find an appropriate article.
OMG, i'm agreeing with the Rupert Murdock owned WSJ, what's going on!
The Wall Street Journal ObamaCare and the Constitution If Congress can force you to buy insurance, Article I limits on federal power are a dead letter.
The constitutional challenges to ObamaCare have come quickly, and the media are portraying them mostly as hopeless gestures—the political equivalent of Civil War re-enactors. Discussion over: You lost, deal with it.
The press corps never dismissed the legal challenges to the war on terror so easily, but then liberals have long treated property rights and any limits on federal power to regulate commerce as 18th-century anachronisms. In fact, the legal challenges to ObamaCare are serious and carry enormous implications for the future of American liberty.
The most important legal challenge turns on the "individual mandate"—the new requirement that almost every U.S. citizen must buy government-approved health insurance. Failure to comply will be punished by an annual tax penalty that by 2016 will rise to $750 or 2% of income, whichever is higher. President Obama opposed this kind of coercion as a candidate but has become a convert [suprise suprise! :roll: :roll: :roll: ]. He even argued in a September interview that "I absolutely reject that notion" that this tax is a tax, because it is supposedly for your own good.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and 13 other state AGs—including Louisiana Democrat Buddy Caldwell—claim this is an unprecedented exercise of state power. Never before has Congress required people to buy a private product to qualify as a law-abiding citizen.
As the Congressional Budget Office noted in 1994, "Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic transactions, rather than as members of society." The only law in the same league is conscription [wow. what great legal company, Obamorons!], though in that case the Constitution gives Congress the explicit power to raise a standing army.
Democrats claim the mandate is justified under the Commerce Clause, because health care and health insurance are a form of interstate commerce. They also claim the mandate is constitutional because it is structured as a tax, which is legal under the 16th Amendment. And it is true that the Supreme Court has ruled as recently as 2005, in the homegrown marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich, that Congress can regulate essentially economic activities that "taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce."
But even in Raich the High Court did not say that the Commerce Clause can justify any federal regulation, and in other modern cases the Court has rebuked Congress for overreaching. In U.S. v. Lopez(1995), the High Court ruled that carrying a gun near a school zone was not economically significant enough to qualify as interstate commerce, while in Morrison (2000) it overturned a law about violence against women on the same grounds.
All human activity arguably has some economic footprint. So if Congress can force Americans to buy a product, the question is what remains of the government of limited and enumerated powers, as provided in Article I. The only remaining restraint on federal power would be the Bill of Rights, though the Founders considered those 10 amendments to be an affirmation of the rights inherent in the rest of the Constitution, not the only restraint on government. If the insurance mandate stands, then why can't Congress insist that Americans buy GM cars, or that obese Americans eat their vegetables or pay a fat tax penalty?
The mandate did not pose the same constitutional problems when Mitt Romney succeeded in passing one in Massachusetts, because state governments have police powers and often wider plenary authority under their constitutions than does the federal government. Florida's constitution also has a privacy clause that underscores the strong state interest in opposing Congress's health-care intrusion.
As for the assertion that the mandate is really a tax, this is an attempt at legal finesse. The mandate is the legal requirement to buy a certain product, while the tax is the means of enforcement. This is not a true income or even excise tax. Congress cannot, merely by invoking a tax, blow up the Framers' attempt to restrain government under Article I.
The states also have a strong case with their claim that ObamaCare upsets the Constitution's federalist framework by converting the states into arms of the federal government. The bill requires states to spend billions of dollars to rearrange their health-care markets and vastly expands who can enroll in Medicaid, whether or not states can afford it.
Florida already spends a little over a quarter of its budget on Medicaid, and under ObamaCare that will expand by at least 50% as some 1.3 million new people enroll. Those benefits, and the burden of setting up the new exchanges, will cost Florida $149 million in 2014 and $1.05 billion annually by 2018. The state will either have to cut other priorities or raise taxes. In legal essence, ObamaCare infringes on state sovereignty and unconstitutionally conscripts state officials.
Less potent, at least to our reading, is the challenge on behalf of state laws that bar or exempt their citizens from the mandate. Virginia passed such a law earlier this year, and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is suing on those grounds. But while such efforts serve as healthy political protest, federal laws that are constitutional are supreme under the 10th Amendment, and states can't "nullify" a Congressional action.
***
Judicial and media liberals are trying to dismiss these challenges as a revanchist attempt to repeal the New Deal, or, worse, as a way to restore the states's rights of Jim Crow. Modern liberals genuinely believe the federal government can order the states and individuals to do anything as long as it is in pursuit of their larger social agenda. They also want to deter more state Attorneys General from joining these lawsuits.
The AGs should not be deterred, because the truth is that ObamaCare breaks new constitutional ground.Neither the House nor Senate Judiciary Committees held hearings on the law's constitutionality, and we are not aware of any Justice Department opinion on the matter. Judges have an obligation not to be so cavalier in dismissing claims on behalf of political liberty. Under the Constitution, American courts don't give advisory opinions. They rule on specific cases, and the states have a good one to make.
Democrats may have been able to trample the rules of the Senate to pass their unpopular bill on a narrow partisan vote, but they shouldn't be able to trample the Constitution as well.
OMFG. GO WSJ GO!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
sweet fn jesus...what are you babbling about...I'm serious...
I take it you're whining about the individual mandate to purchase insurance and that you view it as "unconstitutional"...I guess the courts will decide that...
I guess you and others are up in arms about Auto insurance and homeowners insurance...you know, that's not in the constitution either...I find amusing that some will only pull out he Constitution when it fits them...
I looked for the author of this article, and couldn't find it...
to me, it's interesting that folks cling to the constitution like some cling to the Bible or the Qur’an...
anyhoo, back to being a working drone...have a good one... :thumbup:
sweet fn jesus...what are you babbling about...I'm serious...
I take it you're whining about the individual mandate to purchase insurance and that you view it as "unconstitutional"...I guess the courts will decide that...
I guess you and others are up in arms about Auto insurance and homeowners insurance...you know, that's not in the constitution either...I find amusing that some will only pull out he Constitution when it fits them...
I looked for the author of this article, and couldn't find it...
to me, it's interesting that folks cling to the constitution like some cling to the Bible or the Qur’an...
anyhoo, back to being a working drone...have a good one... :thumbup:
IF THERE IS NO LISTED AUTHOR IN A MAIN STREAM NEWS ARTICLE IT USUALLY MEANS IT WAS WRITTEN BY THE EDITORIAL STAFF AS A WHOLE
That means the editors of the WSJ no likey likey Obama care.
And, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, YOU NEED TO PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS
and get an idea of what the constitution is laying out as law.
This is the 2nd or 3rd time in 2 days that you have asked me, AFTER A FULL RESPONSE, "what the hell are you talking about"? Read the fucking article. Pull out a dictionary. Go over some reference material. Do some of your own research, and FIGURE IT OUT.
That article is written in PLAIN ENGLISH.
The method employed by Obamacare to FORCE YOU IN TO BUYING PRIVATE INSURANCE is A BLATANT SUBVERSION OF THE ARTICLE 1 LIMITS ON FEDERAL POWER.
Do you not understand that?
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DO ANYTHING UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY THE CONSTITUTION.
DO YOU SEE "PROVIDE HEALTHCARE OR TAX TO INDUCE COMPLIANCE" IN THE LIST OF FEDERALLY GRANTED POWERS IN THE CONSTITUTION?
If not, then it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Perhaps you don't have the sharpest legal mind, but go reread the WSJ article.
THEY MAKE IT EXPLICIT AS TO IN WHICH WAYS THIS LAW IS IN CLEAR CONTRADICTION WITH THE LIMITS TO POWER IMPOSED ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION.
I don't know if you aren't an American or what,
but you seem to clearly have ZERO comprehension of the expressed opinions of our founding fathers with relation to what the federal government CAN and CAN NOT DO.
Obamacare, at least in it's attempt to MANDATE COVERAGE, BLATANTLY VIOLATES THIS CONSTRAINT.
So let me ask you,
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU BABBLING ABOUT?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Right fuckin on Drifting!!!!!! Goddamn it's good to see some actual common fucking sense on here.
As far as the whole argument that car INS. Is no different is a joke. You only have to have auto INS. If you own and drive a car also it is designed to protect not only you but other drivers as well. Also you have the ablity to buy across state lines so you can find the best policy that suits you and your wallet unlike health INS.
sweet fn jesus...what are you babbling about...I'm serious...
I take it you're whining about the individual mandate to purchase insurance and that you view it as "unconstitutional"...I guess the courts will decide that...
I guess you and others are up in arms about Auto insurance and homeowners insurance...you know, that's not in the constitution either...I find amusing that some will only pull out he Constitution when it fits them...
I looked for the author of this article, and couldn't find it...
to me, it's interesting that folks cling to the constitution like some cling to the Bible or the Qur’an...
anyhoo, back to being a working drone...have a good one... :thumbup:
IF THERE IS NO LISTED AUTHOR IN A MAIN STREAM NEWS ARTICLE IT USUALLY MEANS IT WAS WRITTEN BY THE EDITORIAL STAFF AS A WHOLE
That means the editors of the WSJ no likey likey Obama care.
And, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, YOU NEED TO PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS
and get an idea of what the constitution is laying out as law.
This is the 2nd or 3rd time in 2 days that you have asked me, AFTER A FULL RESPONSE, "what the hell are you talking about"? Read the fucking article. Pull out a dictionary. Go over some reference material. Do some of your own research, and FIGURE IT OUT.
That article is written in PLAIN ENGLISH.
The method employed by Obamacare to FORCE YOU IN TO BUYING PRIVATE INSURANCE is A BLATANT SUBVERSION OF THE ARTICLE 1 LIMITS ON FEDERAL POWER.
Do you not understand that?
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DO ANYTHING UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY THE CONSTITUTION.
DO YOU SEE "PROVIDE HEALTHCARE OR TAX TO INDUCE COMPLIANCE" IN THE LIST OF FEDERALLY GRANTED POWERS IN THE CONSTITUTION?
If not, then it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Perhaps you don't have the sharpest legal mind, but go reread the WSJ article.
THEY MAKE IT EXPLICIT AS TO IN WHICH WAYS THIS LAW IS IN CLEAR CONTRADICTION WITH THE LIMITS TO POWER IMPOSED ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION.
I don't know if you aren't an American or what,
but you seem to clearly have ZERO comprehension of the expressed opinions of our founding fathers with relation to what the federal government CAN and CAN NOT DO.
Obamacare, at least in it's attempt to MANDATE COVERAGE, BLATANTLY VIOLATES THIS CONSTRAINT.
So let me ask you,
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU BABBLING ABOUT?
so, I guess you're ok with mandatory auto and homeowners insurance...it's funny how you ignore points and yell about your own...
you cling to the constitution as it were your bible...oh wait, you don't want to address that point...
As I mentioned before, you must be big fan of the 3/5 compromise...oh, I'm sorry, you'll ignore that to...
maybe I'm just part of the illuminate...here to drive you nuts...bwwww ha ha ha... :twisted:
anyhoo, suck it up buttercup,because you'll be buying insurance just like the rest of us in few years...ha ha ha...
Right fuckin on Drifting!!!!!! Goddamn it's good to see some actual common fucking sense on here.
As far as the whole argument that car INS. Is no different is a joke. You only have to have auto INS. If you own and drive a car also it is designed to protect not only you but other drivers as well. Also you have the ablity to buy across state lines so you can find the best policy that suits you and your wallet unlike health INS.
wait a minute...you're ok with forcing me to buy auto insurance because I'm successful and can own a car...
what about me liberty...? me freedom...? what are you, some socialist fascist marxist....why do you hate America and Freedom...?
I was just reading my copy of the constitution and found this tid-bit under Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Are you really that lame where is I have to explain to you why any Home owner must have Home owners INS.
Gee let's think about this for a sec.As long as you have a loan on your home you have to have homeowners insurance. Becuase if something happens to the Home like you know a Fire or some other natrual disaster the bank doesn't loose any money because it belongs to the bank until you pay off the loan. You do under stand that right ? Now when you pay off your home you can choose not to cary homeowners INS. You Fowllow me ?
wait a minute...you're ok with forcing me to buy auto insurance because I'm successful and can own a car...
Dude why do you get off on acting like a jack ass ?? If you cant understand the difference between why you have to have car Ins and the FEDERAL GOV. FORCING YOU TO BUY HEALTH INS. then I don't know what else to say. Think about it.
No I don't think Obama is doing a good job. I think he is way out of his league when it comes to running this country. I have never seen a president belittle and put down his own countries citizens like he does. But I guess that's what someone does that think's and acts a dictator.
seriously?????
we could debate the job he is doing for ages and there is not point becuase we will never agree.
however he is not out of his league, maybe you would rather have Palin :roll: she would be right at home running the country. If not then who is in your league?
Puts the citizens down, when? where? that just sounds like some oversensitive whining. Acts like a dictator??? well maybe you should go live in a country with a real dictatorship for 6 months come back and see if you have the same opinion.
when you make these complaints it is hard not to make the comparisons to Bush Jr, which leads me to laughing my ass off..... talk about out of their league
No I don't think Obama is doing a good job. I think he is way out of his league when it comes to running this country. I have never seen a president belittle and put down his own countries citizens like he does. But I guess that's what someone does that think's and acts a dictator.
seriously?????
we could debate the job he is doing for ages and there is not point becuase we will never agree.
however he is not out of his league, maybe you would rather have Palin :roll: she would be right at home running the country. If not then who is in your league?
Puts the citizens down, when? where? that just sounds like some oversensitive whining. Acts like a dictator??? well maybe you should go live in a country with a real dictatorship for 6 months come back and see if you have the same opinion.
when you make these complaints it is hard not to make the comparisons to Bush Jr, which leads me to laughing my ass off..... talk about out of their league
yeah seriously... I suppport constitutionalist like Ron Paul. Something that Obama could never be. I see that you're just another Obama drone who thinks that he can do no wrong.
you ask when and where has he disrespected americans ?? Everytime he opens his mouth he does. Most recently at a commencment speech he gave and before that at a fundraiser in Miami.
and I don't need to go somewhere for 6 months when we have a president that acts like one right here.But like I said you're just another Obama drone so I wouldn't expect you to see it that way..
I was just reading my copy of the constitution and found this tid-bit under Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
interesting stuff this bible of yours...
you care to elaborate your point on this?
I think you are still missing the boat, brother.
The constitution must SPECIFICALLY ITERATE A POWER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
They are called ENUMERATED POWERS.
And the founders of our country made the constitution, in large part, CHIEFLY TO RESTRICT THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
This healthcare bill is an outright violation of those restrictions, and i'm not sure how in the world you could twist your copy of the constitution to make it read otherwise.
If you ever would care to elaborate on your point,
or come up with some other crafty method of weaseling around the point let me know, and we can further our discussion.
As it is, you seem to be grasping at straws.
:(
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Puts the citizens down, when? where? that just sounds like some oversensitive whining.
not sure if it's what he's talking about but when Obama lost the primary in pennsylvania he said it was because
"....it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
maybe they didn't vote for you because they felt another candidate represented them better??
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
No I don't think Obama is doing a good job. I think he is way out of his league when it comes to running this country. I have never seen a president belittle and put down his own countries citizens like he does. But I guess that's what someone does that think's and acts a dictator.
seriously?????
we could debate the job he is doing for ages and there is not point becuase we will never agree.
however he is not out of his league, maybe you would rather have Palin :roll: she would be right at home running the country. If not then who is in your league?
Puts the citizens down, when? where? that just sounds like some oversensitive whining. Acts like a dictator??? well maybe you should go live in a country with a real dictatorship for 6 months come back and see if you have the same opinion.
when you make these complaints it is hard not to make the comparisons to Bush Jr, which leads me to laughing my ass off..... talk about out of their league
yeah seriously... I suppport constitutionalist like Ron Paul. Something that Obama could never be. I see that you're just another Obama drone who thinks that he can do no wrong.
you ask when and where has he disrespected americans ?? Everytime he opens his mouth he does. Most recently at a commencment speech he gave and before that at a fundraiser in Miami.
and I don't need to go somewhere for 6 months when we have a president that acts like one right here.But like I said you're just another Obama drone so I wouldn't expect you to see it that way..
Dude - first of all, you're the one who's coming across like a drone, making a bunch of inflammatory comments instead of providing facts. I have come to expect that kind of lack of critical thinking from some people on this board, but I am very disappointed to see it coming so much from you.
Secondly, I, too, was wondering what Obama has said that has been so disrespectful to Americans. Please provide examples.
Third, when you make accusations of dictatorship in the U.S., it's extremely disrespectful to the people who have actually had to live - and die - under dictators, and makes you look unbelievably ignorant. Let's get real here. Do you REALLY believe that the current situation in the United States is the same as Germany under Hitler, North Korea under Kim Jong-Il, Libya under Muammar al-Qaddafi, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, Chile under Augusto Pinochet, Italy under Benito Mussolini, Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, or Iraq under Saddam Hussein?
No I don't think Obama is doing a good job. I think he is way out of his league when it comes to running this country. I have never seen a president belittle and put down his own countries citizens like he does. But I guess that's what someone does that think's and acts a dictator.
seriously?????
we could debate the job he is doing for ages and there is not point becuase we will never agree.
however he is not out of his league, maybe you would rather have Palin :roll: she would be right at home running the country. If not then who is in your league?
Puts the citizens down, when? where? that just sounds like some oversensitive whining. Acts like a dictator??? well maybe you should go live in a country with a real dictatorship for 6 months come back and see if you have the same opinion.
when you make these complaints it is hard not to make the comparisons to Bush Jr, which leads me to laughing my ass off..... talk about out of their league
yeah seriously... I suppport constitutionalist like Ron Paul. Something that Obama could never be. I see that you're just another Obama drone who thinks that he can do no wrong.
you ask when and where has he disrespected americans ?? Everytime he opens his mouth he does. Most recently at a commencment speech he gave and before that at a fundraiser in Miami.
and I don't need to go somewhere for 6 months when we have a president that acts like one right here.But like I said you're just another Obama drone so I wouldn't expect you to see it that way..
you know I get really tired of your shit and the stuff you spew out......
first off I am not an Obama drone but I do believe in being realistic about my perspective.... and things like calling him a dictator.. people Saddam, Stalin, Hitler and Kim Jon Il... were dictators and well maybe you just don't know what the word means
must be tough to live life so out of touch with reality
Are you really that lame where is I have to explain to you why any Home owner must have Home owners INS.
Gee let's think about this for a sec.As long as you have a loan on your home you have to have homeowners insurance. Becuase if something happens to the Home like you know a Fire or some other natrual disaster the bank doesn't loose any money because it belongs to the bank until you pay off the loan. You do under stand that right ? Now when you pay off your home you can choose not to cary homeowners INS. You Fowllow me ?
wait a minute...you're ok with forcing me to buy auto insurance because I'm successful and can own a car...
Dude why do you get off on acting like a jack ass ?? If you cant understand the difference between why you have to have car Ins and the FEDERAL GOV. FORCING YOU TO BUY HEALTH INS. then I don't know what else to say. Think about it.
but but...auto and homeowners insurance is not mentioned in the constitution...THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!
I thought the CONSTITUTION was the ONLY guiding document that we must follow...THE CONSTITUTION, DAMN IT...
If it's not in the CONSTITUTION, it can't happen...
Are you really that lame where is I have to explain to you why any Home owner must have Home owners INS.
Gee let's think about this for a sec.As long as you have a loan on your home you have to have homeowners insurance. Becuase if something happens to the Home like you know a Fire or some other natrual disaster the bank doesn't loose any money because it belongs to the bank until you pay off the loan. You do under stand that right ? Now when you pay off your home you can choose not to cary homeowners INS. You Fowllow me ?
wait a minute...you're ok with forcing me to buy auto insurance because I'm successful and can own a car...
Dude why do you get off on acting like a jack ass ?? If you cant understand the difference between why you have to have car Ins and the FEDERAL GOV. FORCING YOU TO BUY HEALTH INS. then I don't know what else to say. Think about it.
but but...auto and homeowners insurance is not mentioned in the constitution...THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!
I thought the CONSTITUTION was the ONLY guiding document that we must follow...THE CONSTITUTION, DAMN IT...
If it's not in the CONSTITUTION, it can't happen...
auto insurance isn't required by the federal government to be purchased.
next...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
auto insurance isn't required by the federal government to be purchased.
next...
my liberty...what about my liberty...??
why do you hate freedom...?
i realize you are just trolling and everything, but I thought I would let you and anyone who was reading this for actual information and debate know that difference between health and auto insurance. So enjoy, it looks like they are feeding you nicely
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
auto insurance isn't required by the federal government to be purchased.
next...
my liberty...what about my liberty...??
why do you hate freedom...?
i realize you are just trolling and everything, but I thought I would let you and anyone who was reading this for actual information and debate know that difference between health and auto insurance. So enjoy, it looks like they are feeding you nicely
he he...you calling me a troll...good stuff...it's funny how when folks don't have a good response they tend to call names... as you know exactly what my point was...
how about we step back for a minute and take the whole "but he Constitution" thing out of this conversation....
don't you find it ironic that folks have been paying for home and auto insurance for years and years (I know it's a law for me to have auto insurance or I can't drive thus usurping my freedom, my liberty...I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK... )...and suddenly those same folks are whining and moaning about freedom and liberty when it comes to this health care mandate...
oh well, those who hate obama for any and every reason will continue to do so no matter what...
Man, they made it pretty clear for you and yet you just keep repeating the same ol' shit. It's obvious we need to have auto insurance because there are other people at risk besides just the driver. This issue has been covered so many times it's now headache material.
Man, they made it pretty clear for you and yet you just keep repeating the same ol' shit. It's obvious we need to have auto insurance because there are other people at risk besides just the driver. This issue has been covered so many times it's now headache material.
thanks for joining in...I guess folks who don't have health insurance, and who get sick and run up huge bills, and those bills get "written off", and the cost gets put on those who do have insurance and can pay their bills doesn't really put people at risk... :roll:
he he...you calling me a troll...good stuff...it's funny how when folks don't have a good response they tend to call names... as you know exactly what my point was...
how about we step back for a minute and take the whole "but he Constitution" thing out of this conversation....
don't you find it ironic that folks have been paying for home and auto insurance for years and years (I know it's a law for me to have auto insurance or I can't drive thus usurping my freedom, my liberty...I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK... )...and suddenly those same folks are whining and moaning about freedom and liberty when it comes to this health care mandate...
oh well, those who hate obama for any and every reason will continue to do so no matter what...
hey man, the difference being that the STATE you live in is requiring you to have car insurance, the FEDERAL government has nothing to do with it. Same thing with PMI, it isn't the feds requiring it, it is the lenders. Seriously, the reason people are ignoring your points is because you don't have one.
And if you want to go to class, drifting has already given one.
Your point, which is that people should stop complaining about their freedom being trampled on, is concerning to me. Are you ok with people's freedoms being trampled on? Are you ok with the way the federal government continues(as it has for years, not just with Obama) to ignore the constitution?
If you refuse to take drifting's points seriously why don't you read up on police powers and get back to me. Until, enjoy all the food. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Police+Power
and
It has nothing to do with HATING OBAMA (I don't hate him at all). If that was the case than people should shut up about the patriot act because the only reason they do is because they hate bush.
edit:
I called you a troll because Drifting gave you a TON of answers and you kept repeating the same thing almost as though you were doing it just to annoy. If that wasn't what you were doing than I apologize profusely for calling you a troll.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
he he...you calling me a troll...good stuff...it's funny how when folks don't have a good response they tend to call names... as you know exactly what my point was...
how about we step back for a minute and take the whole "but he Constitution" thing out of this conversation....
don't you find it ironic that folks have been paying for home and auto insurance for years and years (I know it's a law for me to have auto insurance or I can't drive thus usurping my freedom, my liberty...I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK... )...and suddenly those same folks are whining and moaning about freedom and liberty when it comes to this health care mandate...
oh well, those who hate obama for any and every reason will continue to do so no matter what...
hey man, the difference being that the STATE you live in is requiring you to have car insurance, the FEDERAL government has nothing to do with it. Same thing with PMI, it isn't the feds requiring it, it is the lenders. Seriously, the reason people are ignoring your points is because you don't have one.
And if you want to go to class, drifting has already given one.
Your point, which is that people should stop complaining about their freedom being trampled on, is concerning to me. Are you ok with people's freedoms being trampled on? Are you ok with the way the federal government continues(as it has for years, not just with Obama) to ignore the constitution?
If you refuse to take drifting's points seriously why don't you read up on police powers and get back to me. Until, enjoy all the food. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Police+Power
and
It has nothing to do with HATING OBAMA (I don't hate him at all). If that was the case than people should shut up about the patriot act because the only reason they do is because they hate bush.
edit:
I called you a troll because Drifting gave you a TON of answers and you kept repeating the same thing almost as though you were doing it just to annoy. If that wasn't what you were doing than I apologize profusely for calling you a troll.
no worries, my friend...I guess based on your definition of a troll (i.e., one who says the same thing over and over just to annoy) can fit many folks on this board...
I guess what I have trouble with is this, folks are ok with established mandates to purchase various kinds of insurance, but suddenly this mandate is "unconstitutional"...I guess I'm looking at an overall picture...why is one accepted and one not...I find it hard to understand when someone to writes their check out to Geico then suddenly they complain that mandated health insurance is going to be the downfall of mankind...
call me Kooky, but it's my understanding that Supremacy Clause pretty much states Federal Law trumps State Law....thus, this being a federal mandate, this it trumps states rights...and for the record, I'm a living document type of fella...and I'm guessing I'm not the only one...cuz if I were, slavery would be accepted and women wouldn't be allowed to vote...
I find it amusing that some look at the Constitution as perfect document only when they want to make a point...
he he...you calling me a troll...good stuff...it's funny how when folks don't have a good response they tend to call names... as you know exactly what my point was...
how about we step back for a minute and take the whole "but he Constitution" thing out of this conversation....
don't you find it ironic that folks have been paying for home and auto insurance for years and years (I know it's a law for me to have auto insurance or I can't drive thus usurping my freedom, my liberty...I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK... )...and suddenly those same folks are whining and moaning about freedom and liberty when it comes to this health care mandate...
oh well, those who hate obama for any and every reason will continue to do so no matter what...
hey man, the difference being that the STATE you live in is requiring you to have car insurance, the FEDERAL government has nothing to do with it. Same thing with PMI, it isn't the feds requiring it, it is the lenders. Seriously, the reason people are ignoring your points is because you don't have one.
And if you want to go to class, drifting has already given one.
Your point, which is that people should stop complaining about their freedom being trampled on, is concerning to me. Are you ok with people's freedoms being trampled on? Are you ok with the way the federal government continues(as it has for years, not just with Obama) to ignore the constitution?
If you refuse to take drifting's points seriously why don't you read up on police powers and get back to me. Until, enjoy all the food. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Police+Power
and
It has nothing to do with HATING OBAMA (I don't hate him at all). If that was the case than people should shut up about the patriot act because the only reason they do is because they hate bush.
edit:
I called you a troll because Drifting gave you a TON of answers and you kept repeating the same thing almost as though you were doing it just to annoy. If that wasn't what you were doing than I apologize profusely for calling you a troll.
no worries, my friend...I guess based on your definition of a troll (i.e., one who says the same thing over and over just to annoy) can fit many folks on this board...
I guess what I have trouble with is this, folks are ok with established mandates to purchase various kinds of insurance, but suddenly this mandate is "unconstitutional"...I guess I'm looking at an overall picture...why is one accepted and one not...I find it hard to understand when someone to writes their check out to Geico then suddenly they complain that mandated health insurance is going to be the downfall of mankind...
call me Kooky, but it's my understanding that Supremacy Clause pretty much states Federal Law trumps State Law....thus, this being a federal mandate, this it trumps states rights...and for the record, I'm a living document type of fella...and I'm guessing I'm not the only one...cuz if I were, slavery would be accepted and women wouldn't be allowed to vote...
I find it amusing that some look at the Constitution as perfect document only when they want to make a point...
that is understandable. However, the supremacy clause only applies where federal law is actually able to be made. The problem here is that the feds have crossed over into the police powers of the state without authority (in my opinion of course, it is yet to be seen in the challenges who is right). If the constitution were amended and the federal government were given police powers then there wouldn't be an issue. The constitution is not a perfect document. Things like suffrage for women and slavery were ended with amendments. But as of this day, there is no power granted to the federal government that gives them the right to do this type of thing.
Some would rather have a federal government that does everything, others want the states to continue to be individual. I happen to be the latter. Until an amendment is ratified the Feds do not have police powers. And remember that isn't just the right to form a police force. It is much more than that
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
that is understandable. However, the supremacy clause only applies where federal law is actually able to be made. The problem here is that the feds have crossed over into the police powers of the state without authority (in my opinion of course, it is yet to be seen in the challenges who is right). If the constitution were amended and the federal government were given police powers then there wouldn't be an issue. The constitution is not a perfect document. Things like suffrage for women and slavery were ended with amendments. But as of this day, there is no power granted to the federal government that gives them the right to do this type of thing.
Some would rather have a federal government that does everything, others want the states to continue to be individual. I happen to be the latter. Until an amendment is ratified the Feds do not have police powers. And remember that isn't just the right to form a police force. It is much more than that
Man, they made it pretty clear for you and yet you just keep repeating the same ol' shit. It's obvious we need to have auto insurance because there are other people at risk besides just the driver. This issue has been covered so many times it's now headache material.
thanks for joining in...I guess folks who don't have health insurance, and who get sick and run up huge bills, and those bills get "written off", and the cost gets put on those who do have insurance and can pay their bills doesn't really put people at risk... :roll:
care for an assprin...?
I don't really understand this "written off" that you speak of. I got really sick 6 years ago and didn't have insurance. I got the best care and treatment anybody could ask for. When all was said and done the hospital called me up to set up a payment plan that would fit into my budget. I never heard of a hospital or doctor saying, eh, don't worry about it....we'll just write it off" . And i'm assuming if they did, it affected their credit in a big way.
I don't really know how this Obamacare is all going to work out. I feel it hasn't taken much affect yet (except for premiums going up) to really predict how it's going to affect anyone. But I don't believe our health care system, as it was, is as bad as Michael Moore tells you it is, or was.
Your point, which is that people should stop complaining about their freedom being trampled on, is concerning to me. Are you ok with people's freedoms being trampled on? Are you ok with the way the federal government continues(as it has for years, not just with Obama) to ignore the constitution?
I can't help but point out that you, yourself, have argued in support of people's freedoms being trampled on and suggested that they should stop complaining. So it seems like you pick and choose what freedoms you want to support and then fault others if you think they do the same. This inconsistency is even more concerning to me than your accusations here.
Man, they made it pretty clear for you and yet you just keep repeating the same ol' shit. It's obvious we need to have auto insurance because there are other people at risk besides just the driver. This issue has been covered so many times it's now headache material.
thanks for joining in...I guess folks who don't have health insurance, and who get sick and run up huge bills, and those bills get "written off", and the cost gets put on those who do have insurance and can pay their bills doesn't really put people at risk... :roll:
care for an assprin...?
I don't really understand this "written off" that you speak of. I got really sick 6 years ago and didn't have insurance. I got the best care and treatment anybody could ask for. When all was said and done the hospital called me up to set up a payment plan that would fit into my budget. I never heard of a hospital or doctor saying, eh, don't worry about it....we'll just write it off" . And i'm assuming if they did, it affected their credit in a big way.
Many, many people can't pay their ginormous medical bills. When this happens, the hospital (read: taxpayer) must eat (read: pay) the cost. The fact that this may ruin their credit does not change the fact that the taxpayer gets screwed by people who don't have medical insurance.
Comments
Go read the constitution again.
There is nothing wrong with states, or the people ENACTING A RIGHT THAT HAS BEEN RESERVED SPECIFICALLY TO THEM.
If the people want government intervention, then so be it.
Obviously, i'm of the opinion it should be done sparingly.
In this case you are talking about a "market" that has been mostly cornered by large interests, that in all probability have colluded to perform the same types of nearly-fraudulent behavior en masse.
What is NOT, and should NEVER be acceptable is an outright subversion of the constitution, and especially never simply JUST BECAUSE IT FITS YOUR POLITICAL BENT OR PERSONAL MOTIVES:
Here, look how far i had to look to find an appropriate article.
OMG, i'm agreeing with the Rupert Murdock owned WSJ, what's going on!
The Wall Street Journal
ObamaCare and the Constitution
If Congress can force you to buy insurance, Article I limits on federal power are a dead letter.
The constitutional challenges to ObamaCare have come quickly, and the media are portraying them mostly as hopeless gestures—the political equivalent of Civil War re-enactors. Discussion over: You lost, deal with it.
The press corps never dismissed the legal challenges to the war on terror so easily, but then liberals have long treated property rights and any limits on federal power to regulate commerce as 18th-century anachronisms. In fact, the legal challenges to ObamaCare are serious and carry enormous implications for the future of American liberty.
The most important legal challenge turns on the "individual mandate"—the new requirement that almost every U.S. citizen must buy government-approved health insurance. Failure to comply will be punished by an annual tax penalty that by 2016 will rise to $750 or 2% of income, whichever is higher. President Obama opposed this kind of coercion as a candidate but has become a convert [suprise suprise! :roll: :roll: :roll: ]. He even argued in a September interview that "I absolutely reject that notion" that this tax is a tax, because it is supposedly for your own good.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and 13 other state AGs—including Louisiana Democrat Buddy Caldwell—claim this is an unprecedented exercise of state power. Never before has Congress required people to buy a private product to qualify as a law-abiding citizen.
As the Congressional Budget Office noted in 1994, "Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic transactions, rather than as members of society." The only law in the same league is conscription [wow. what great legal company, Obamorons!], though in that case the Constitution gives Congress the explicit power to raise a standing army.
Democrats claim the mandate is justified under the Commerce Clause, because health care and health insurance are a form of interstate commerce. They also claim the mandate is constitutional because it is structured as a tax, which is legal under the 16th Amendment. And it is true that the Supreme Court has ruled as recently as 2005, in the homegrown marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich, that Congress can regulate essentially economic activities that "taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce."
But even in Raich the High Court did not say that the Commerce Clause can justify any federal regulation, and in other modern cases the Court has rebuked Congress for overreaching. In U.S. v. Lopez(1995), the High Court ruled that carrying a gun near a school zone was not economically significant enough to qualify as interstate commerce, while in Morrison (2000) it overturned a law about violence against women on the same grounds.
All human activity arguably has some economic footprint. So if Congress can force Americans to buy a product, the question is what remains of the government of limited and enumerated powers, as provided in Article I. The only remaining restraint on federal power would be the Bill of Rights, though the Founders considered those 10 amendments to be an affirmation of the rights inherent in the rest of the Constitution, not the only restraint on government. If the insurance mandate stands, then why can't Congress insist that Americans buy GM cars, or that obese Americans eat their vegetables or pay a fat tax penalty?
The mandate did not pose the same constitutional problems when Mitt Romney succeeded in passing one in Massachusetts, because state governments have police powers and often wider plenary authority under their constitutions than does the federal government. Florida's constitution also has a privacy clause that underscores the strong state interest in opposing Congress's health-care intrusion.
As for the assertion that the mandate is really a tax, this is an attempt at legal finesse. The mandate is the legal requirement to buy a certain product, while the tax is the means of enforcement. This is not a true income or even excise tax. Congress cannot, merely by invoking a tax, blow up the Framers' attempt to restrain government under Article I.
The states also have a strong case with their claim that ObamaCare upsets the Constitution's federalist framework by converting the states into arms of the federal government. The bill requires states to spend billions of dollars to rearrange their health-care markets and vastly expands who can enroll in Medicaid, whether or not states can afford it.
Florida already spends a little over a quarter of its budget on Medicaid, and under ObamaCare that will expand by at least 50% as some 1.3 million new people enroll. Those benefits, and the burden of setting up the new exchanges, will cost Florida $149 million in 2014 and $1.05 billion annually by 2018. The state will either have to cut other priorities or raise taxes. In legal essence, ObamaCare infringes on state sovereignty and unconstitutionally conscripts state officials.
Less potent, at least to our reading, is the challenge on behalf of state laws that bar or exempt their citizens from the mandate. Virginia passed such a law earlier this year, and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is suing on those grounds. But while such efforts serve as healthy political protest, federal laws that are constitutional are supreme under the 10th Amendment, and states can't "nullify" a Congressional action.
***
Judicial and media liberals are trying to dismiss these challenges as a revanchist attempt to repeal the New Deal, or, worse, as a way to restore the states's rights of Jim Crow. Modern liberals genuinely believe the federal government can order the states and individuals to do anything as long as it is in pursuit of their larger social agenda. They also want to deter more state Attorneys General from joining these lawsuits.
The AGs should not be deterred, because the truth is that ObamaCare breaks new constitutional ground. Neither the House nor Senate Judiciary Committees held hearings on the law's constitutionality, and we are not aware of any Justice Department opinion on the matter. Judges have an obligation not to be so cavalier in dismissing claims on behalf of political liberty. Under the Constitution, American courts don't give advisory opinions. They rule on specific cases, and the states have a good one to make.
Democrats may have been able to trample the rules of the Senate to pass their unpopular bill on a narrow partisan vote, but they shouldn't be able to trample the Constitution as well.
OMFG. GO WSJ GO!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I take it you're whining about the individual mandate to purchase insurance and that you view it as "unconstitutional"...I guess the courts will decide that...
I guess you and others are up in arms about Auto insurance and homeowners insurance...you know, that's not in the constitution either...I find amusing that some will only pull out he Constitution when it fits them...
I looked for the author of this article, and couldn't find it...
to me, it's interesting that folks cling to the constitution like some cling to the Bible or the Qur’an...
anyhoo, back to being a working drone...have a good one... :thumbup:
IF THERE IS NO LISTED AUTHOR IN A MAIN STREAM NEWS ARTICLE
IT USUALLY MEANS IT WAS WRITTEN BY THE EDITORIAL STAFF AS A WHOLE
That means the editors of the WSJ no likey likey Obama care.
And, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT,
YOU NEED TO PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS
and get an idea of what the constitution is laying out as law.
This is the 2nd or 3rd time in 2 days that you have asked me, AFTER A FULL RESPONSE, "what the hell are you talking about"? Read the fucking article. Pull out a dictionary. Go over some reference material. Do some of your own research, and FIGURE IT OUT.
That article is written in PLAIN ENGLISH.
The method employed by Obamacare to FORCE YOU IN TO BUYING PRIVATE INSURANCE is A BLATANT SUBVERSION OF THE ARTICLE 1 LIMITS ON FEDERAL POWER.
Do you not understand that?
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DO ANYTHING UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY THE CONSTITUTION.
DO YOU SEE "PROVIDE HEALTHCARE OR TAX TO INDUCE COMPLIANCE" IN THE LIST OF FEDERALLY GRANTED POWERS IN THE CONSTITUTION?
If not, then it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Perhaps you don't have the sharpest legal mind, but go reread the WSJ article.
THEY MAKE IT EXPLICIT AS TO IN WHICH WAYS THIS LAW IS IN CLEAR CONTRADICTION WITH THE LIMITS TO POWER IMPOSED ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION.
I don't know if you aren't an American or what,
but you seem to clearly have ZERO comprehension of the expressed opinions of our founding fathers with relation to what the federal government CAN and CAN NOT DO.
Obamacare, at least in it's attempt to MANDATE COVERAGE, BLATANTLY VIOLATES THIS CONSTRAINT.
So let me ask you,
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU BABBLING ABOUT?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
As far as the whole argument that car INS. Is no different is a joke. You only have to have auto INS. If you own and drive a car also it is designed to protect not only you but other drivers as well. Also you have the ablity to buy across state lines so you can find the best policy that suits you and your wallet unlike health INS.
so, I guess you're ok with mandatory auto and homeowners insurance...it's funny how you ignore points and yell about your own...
you cling to the constitution as it were your bible...oh wait, you don't want to address that point...
As I mentioned before, you must be big fan of the 3/5 compromise...oh, I'm sorry, you'll ignore that to...
maybe I'm just part of the illuminate...here to drive you nuts...bwwww ha ha ha... :twisted:
anyhoo, suck it up buttercup,because you'll be buying insurance just like the rest of us in few years...ha ha ha...
simpletons cling to old ideas and notions...
wait a minute...you're ok with forcing me to buy auto insurance because I'm successful and can own a car...
what about me liberty...? me freedom...? what are you, some socialist fascist marxist....why do you hate America and Freedom...?
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
interesting stuff this bible of yours...
Are you really that lame where is I have to explain to you why any Home owner must have Home owners INS.
Gee let's think about this for a sec.As long as you have a loan on your home you have to have homeowners insurance. Becuase if something happens to the Home like you know a Fire or some other natrual disaster the bank doesn't loose any money because it belongs to the bank until you pay off the loan. You do under stand that right ? Now when you pay off your home you can choose not to cary homeowners INS. You Fowllow me ?
Dude why do you get off on acting like a jack ass ?? If you cant understand the difference between why you have to have car Ins and the FEDERAL GOV. FORCING YOU TO BUY HEALTH INS. then I don't know what else to say. Think about it.
seriously?????
we could debate the job he is doing for ages and there is not point becuase we will never agree.
however he is not out of his league, maybe you would rather have Palin :roll: she would be right at home running the country. If not then who is in your league?
Puts the citizens down, when? where? that just sounds like some oversensitive whining. Acts like a dictator??? well maybe you should go live in a country with a real dictatorship for 6 months come back and see if you have the same opinion.
when you make these complaints it is hard not to make the comparisons to Bush Jr, which leads me to laughing my ass off..... talk about out of their league
yeah seriously... I suppport constitutionalist like Ron Paul. Something that Obama could never be. I see that you're just another Obama drone who thinks that he can do no wrong.
you ask when and where has he disrespected americans ?? Everytime he opens his mouth he does. Most recently at a commencment speech he gave and before that at a fundraiser in Miami.
and I don't need to go somewhere for 6 months when we have a president that acts like one right here.But like I said you're just another Obama drone so I wouldn't expect you to see it that way..
you care to elaborate your point on this?
I think you are still missing the boat, brother.
The constitution must SPECIFICALLY ITERATE A POWER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
They are called ENUMERATED POWERS.
And the founders of our country made the constitution, in large part, CHIEFLY TO RESTRICT THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
This healthcare bill is an outright violation of those restrictions, and i'm not sure how in the world you could twist your copy of the constitution to make it read otherwise.
If you ever would care to elaborate on your point,
or come up with some other crafty method of weaseling around the point let me know, and we can further our discussion.
As it is, you seem to be grasping at straws.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
not sure if it's what he's talking about but when Obama lost the primary in pennsylvania he said it was because
"....it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
maybe they didn't vote for you because they felt another candidate represented them better??
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Dude - first of all, you're the one who's coming across like a drone, making a bunch of inflammatory comments instead of providing facts. I have come to expect that kind of lack of critical thinking from some people on this board, but I am very disappointed to see it coming so much from you.
Secondly, I, too, was wondering what Obama has said that has been so disrespectful to Americans. Please provide examples.
Third, when you make accusations of dictatorship in the U.S., it's extremely disrespectful to the people who have actually had to live - and die - under dictators, and makes you look unbelievably ignorant. Let's get real here. Do you REALLY believe that the current situation in the United States is the same as Germany under Hitler, North Korea under Kim Jong-Il, Libya under Muammar al-Qaddafi, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, Chile under Augusto Pinochet, Italy under Benito Mussolini, Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, or Iraq under Saddam Hussein?
you know I get really tired of your shit and the stuff you spew out......
first off I am not an Obama drone but I do believe in being realistic about my perspective.... and things like calling him a dictator.. people Saddam, Stalin, Hitler and Kim Jon Il... were dictators and well maybe you just don't know what the word means
must be tough to live life so out of touch with reality
but but...auto and homeowners insurance is not mentioned in the constitution...THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!
I thought the CONSTITUTION was the ONLY guiding document that we must follow...THE CONSTITUTION, DAMN IT...
If it's not in the CONSTITUTION, it can't happen...
right back at you, buttercup...
auto insurance isn't required by the federal government to be purchased.
next...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
my liberty...what about my liberty...??
why do you hate freedom...?
i realize you are just trolling and everything, but I thought I would let you and anyone who was reading this for actual information and debate know that difference between health and auto insurance. So enjoy, it looks like they are feeding you nicely
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
he he...you calling me a troll...good stuff...it's funny how when folks don't have a good response they tend to call names... as you know exactly what my point was...
how about we step back for a minute and take the whole "but he Constitution" thing out of this conversation....
don't you find it ironic that folks have been paying for home and auto insurance for years and years (I know it's a law for me to have auto insurance or I can't drive thus usurping my freedom, my liberty...I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK... )...and suddenly those same folks are whining and moaning about freedom and liberty when it comes to this health care mandate...
oh well, those who hate obama for any and every reason will continue to do so no matter what...
thanks for joining in...I guess folks who don't have health insurance, and who get sick and run up huge bills, and those bills get "written off", and the cost gets put on those who do have insurance and can pay their bills doesn't really put people at risk... :roll:
care for an assprin...?
hey man, the difference being that the STATE you live in is requiring you to have car insurance, the FEDERAL government has nothing to do with it. Same thing with PMI, it isn't the feds requiring it, it is the lenders. Seriously, the reason people are ignoring your points is because you don't have one.
And if you want to go to class, drifting has already given one.
Your point, which is that people should stop complaining about their freedom being trampled on, is concerning to me. Are you ok with people's freedoms being trampled on? Are you ok with the way the federal government continues(as it has for years, not just with Obama) to ignore the constitution?
If you refuse to take drifting's points seriously why don't you read up on police powers and get back to me. Until, enjoy all the food.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Police+Power
and
It has nothing to do with HATING OBAMA (I don't hate him at all). If that was the case than people should shut up about the patriot act because the only reason they do is because they hate bush.
edit:
I called you a troll because Drifting gave you a TON of answers and you kept repeating the same thing almost as though you were doing it just to annoy. If that wasn't what you were doing than I apologize profusely for calling you a troll.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
no worries, my friend...I guess based on your definition of a troll (i.e., one who says the same thing over and over just to annoy) can fit many folks on this board...
I guess what I have trouble with is this, folks are ok with established mandates to purchase various kinds of insurance, but suddenly this mandate is "unconstitutional"...I guess I'm looking at an overall picture...why is one accepted and one not...I find it hard to understand when someone to writes their check out to Geico then suddenly they complain that mandated health insurance is going to be the downfall of mankind...
call me Kooky, but it's my understanding that Supremacy Clause pretty much states Federal Law trumps State Law....thus, this being a federal mandate, this it trumps states rights...and for the record, I'm a living document type of fella...and I'm guessing I'm not the only one...cuz if I were, slavery would be accepted and women wouldn't be allowed to vote...
I find it amusing that some look at the Constitution as perfect document only when they want to make a point...
that is understandable. However, the supremacy clause only applies where federal law is actually able to be made. The problem here is that the feds have crossed over into the police powers of the state without authority (in my opinion of course, it is yet to be seen in the challenges who is right). If the constitution were amended and the federal government were given police powers then there wouldn't be an issue. The constitution is not a perfect document. Things like suffrage for women and slavery were ended with amendments. But as of this day, there is no power granted to the federal government that gives them the right to do this type of thing.
Some would rather have a federal government that does everything, others want the states to continue to be individual. I happen to be the latter. Until an amendment is ratified the Feds do not have police powers. And remember that isn't just the right to form a police force. It is much more than that
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
thus we've come full circle..
I guess the courts will eventually decide...
I don't really understand this "written off" that you speak of. I got really sick 6 years ago and didn't have insurance. I got the best care and treatment anybody could ask for. When all was said and done the hospital called me up to set up a payment plan that would fit into my budget. I never heard of a hospital or doctor saying, eh, don't worry about it....we'll just write it off" . And i'm assuming if they did, it affected their credit in a big way.
I don't really know how this Obamacare is all going to work out. I feel it hasn't taken much affect yet (except for premiums going up) to really predict how it's going to affect anyone. But I don't believe our health care system, as it was, is as bad as Michael Moore tells you it is, or was.
I can't help but point out that you, yourself, have argued in support of people's freedoms being trampled on and suggested that they should stop complaining. So it seems like you pick and choose what freedoms you want to support and then fault others if you think they do the same. This inconsistency is even more concerning to me than your accusations here.
Many, many people can't pay their ginormous medical bills. When this happens, the hospital (read: taxpayer) must eat (read: pay) the cost. The fact that this may ruin their credit does not change the fact that the taxpayer gets screwed by people who don't have medical insurance.
I'm curious what part of Sicko you think is not true.