Health Care Reform Supreme Court Case

mikepegg44

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

This is great:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/supreme_court_and_obamacare_what_donald_verrilli_should_have_said_to_the_court_s_conservative_justices_.single.html

So all brocoli is grown in the state its purchased?

I never leave the state and eat brocoli at dinner? Or even purchase it for my mom? I'm out of state all the time. I can't just eat my veggies when I'm home. :roll:

If you choose not to purchase broccoli you can't later get broccoli for free just because you were diagnosed with a broccoli deficiency. (or something like that)

Point is, it's not the same thing.

this made me laugh, well done.
I have one for you...isn't forcing health insurance on people who may have otherwise never used the healthcare system a lot like making people buy broccoli and then never eat it?

But the main point is that once the Feds are allowed to make laws with individual mandates for the greater good because of the interstate commerce clause...then what is to stop them from forcing requiring purchase of enough vegetables to constitute a healthy diet? A size and scope argument doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from doing it in the future with other products...
Also, they could mandate that anyone who goes to a clinic either pays out of pocket up front or is required to purchase insurance that day. That is legal because a person is VOLUNTARILY entering into the healthcare contract. Taking into account inevitability of contact doesn't take into account means of the person and just isn't a solid footing in my opinion. They have overstepped and are now forcing justification that really wasn't thought out prior to drafting the law. They could have raised taxes and given a credit to people who have insurance. That is different accounting as well and well within the already strong powers of the legislative branch

EdsonNascimento

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

This is great:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/supreme_court_and_obamacare_what_donald_verrilli_should_have_said_to_the_court_s_conservative_justices_.single.html

So all brocoli is grown in the state its purchased?

I never leave the state and eat brocoli at dinner? Or even purchase it for my mom? I'm out of state all the time. I can't just eat my veggies when I'm home. :roll:

If you choose not to purchase broccoli you can't later get broccoli for free just because you were diagnosed with a broccoli deficiency. (or something like that)

Point is, it's not the same thing.

Why not? And why should I be getting anything for free? I'm lost. We're now just handing stuff out? No more earning your own keep? Have I fallen asleep and woken up in the FORMER Soviet Union?

And if I am in another state and what to purchase broccoli and bring it home, have I not done interstate commerce? What if I'm able to order it on line? So, now EVERYTHING is interstate commerce. Great! I am Soviet. Damn!

Johnny Abruzzo

So, if the government imposes a veggie mandate, do you think sweet potato chips would count? How about hummus?

EdsonNascimento

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

So, if the government imposes a veggie mandate, do you think sweet potato chips would count? How about hummus?

Only if you bring it across State lines....

And, then we can turn into a true Nanny state. So, I'm guessing No on the chips, yes on the hummus and mandatory brussel sprouts. The sprout farmers will be psyched.

Johnny Abruzzo

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

So, if the government imposes a veggie mandate, do you think sweet potato chips would count? How about hummus?

Only if you bring it across State lines....

And, then we can turn into a true Nanny state. So, I'm guessing No on the chips, yes on the hummus and mandatory brussel sprouts. The sprout farmers will be psyched.

Just sautee them with some bacon and sign me up.