• Judge Vinson maintains Healthcare law Unconstitutional. Gives Obama 7 days to appeal.
    333 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415090]Monopolies don't exist in a free market and if they do it's for the benefit of the people.[/QUOTE] Must be nice living in your own little fantasy. [editline]5th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;28442384] Oh, and the Obama administration now has [B]5[/B] days left to appeal.[/QUOTE] You too
yay activist judges
[QUOTE=Atokniro;28426578]Fucking hell America should just look at any country who has a system somewhat similar to Australia's and copy it exactly. [/QUOTE] Copy a healthcare system designed to deal with a population nowhere near the size of America's? You can't just copy & paste something as complex as a healthcare system, it doesn't work like that
[QUOTE=Glaber;28442384]Forcing people to but health insurance makes about as much sense as forcing people to buy whatever.[/QUOTE] Is being forced to buy a TV like being forced to buy health insurance that ensures everyone's well being?
[QUOTE=O'10er;28447000]Copy a healthcare system designed to deal with a population nowhere near the size of America's? You can't just copy & paste something as complex as a healthcare system, it doesn't work like that[/QUOTE] There's no particular reason it doesn't work with our number of people, and our system currently already fails miserably for a huge number of people. Also, the EU, most members of which have universal healthcare, totals around 500M people. Even if it must be implemented at the state level (with federal assistance, as with the current system), it would work for us.
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;28447131]There's no particular reason it doesn't work with our number of people, and our system currently already fails miserably for a huge number of people. Also, the EU, most members of which have universal healthcare, totals around 500M people. Even if it must be implemented at the state level (with federal assistance, as with the current system), it would work for us.[/QUOTE] I second this. A socialized healthcare system is what we need.
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;28447131]There's no particular reason it doesn't work with our number of people, and our system currently already fails miserably for a huge number of people. Also, the EU, most members of which have universal healthcare, totals around 500M people. Even if it must be implemented at the state level (with federal assistance, as with the current system), it would work for us.[/QUOTE] But the EU itself doesn't have a universal healthcare system, those states have their own individual healthcare systems. You could argue that we should look at how the the European and Australian healthcare systems serve their citizens as something to aspire to, and I'd agree with that, but copying them exactly wouldn't work. Besides, imagine trying to get something inspired by 'socialist' europeans through congress :V
[QUOTE=O'10er;28447264]But the EU itself doesn't have a universal healthcare system, those states have their own individual healthcare systems. You could argue that we should look at how the the European and Australian healthcare systems serve their citizens as something to aspire to, and I'd agree with that, but copying them exactly wouldn't work. Besides, imagine trying to get something inspired by 'socialist' europeans through congress :V[/QUOTE] Like he said, we could have the states manage their own systems like the individual EU nations. Besides, regardless of the problems people in congress would have with it, there's no denying a socialized healthcare system is best.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28442384]You know how one of the defenses was the commerce clause from the US Constitution? Well in truth, the commerce clause can't be use to force a person to buy a product or service they don't want.[/QUOTE] Isn't it illegal to drive a car without insurance in the US? It is in Canada to my knowledge.
[QUOTE=Wolfmatyr;28449135]Isn't it illegal to drive a car without insurance in the US? It is in Canada to my knowledge.[/QUOTE] It is, but that is on a per-state basis. There is no federal law regarding driving as far as I know.
I don't see what good this Act will do for us, at all. Ever since it was enacted, only thing that changed was taxes went up, but the cost of surgery and medicine stayed expensive. It still cost me $1,250 to get a growth cut off of my foot. And this was last year.
[QUOTE=zombini;28449499]I don't see what good this Act will do for us, at all. Ever since it was enacted, only thing that changed was taxes went up, but the cost of surgery and medicine stayed expensive. It still cost me $1,250 to get a growth cut off of my foot. And this was last year.[/QUOTE] It hasn't gone into effect yet.
Someone tell me why Obama has to listen to a federal judge in Florida They arent on the same level of authority or anything like that.
They don't, Glaber is just a lunatic.
[QUOTE=Hostel;28447123]Is being forced to buy a TV like being forced to buy health insurance that ensures everyone's well being?[/QUOTE] Intention doesn't matter when Freedom is being violated. What make's it illegal to live without health insurance? Answer me that. [QUOTE=Wolfmatyr;28449135]Isn't it illegal to drive a car without insurance in the US? It is in Canada to my knowledge.[/QUOTE] Yes, but that's a moot point. [quote]Drivers carry required insurance to cover damage done to others, not themselves, for one thing. It’s not applicable at all. Furthermore, states impose the insurance requirement, not the federal government, because states license drivers and vehicles. Driving is, after all, a voluntary activity conducted on public property (roads); there is no requirement for licensing or insurance for those who drive only on their private property. People who don’t drive on public roads aren’t required to buy a license or the insurance. There are other problems with this analogy as well. Those who do have auto insurance only file claims when significant damage occurs. Auto insurance doesn’t pay for routine maintenance, like oil changes, lube jobs, and tire rotation. That’s why auto insurance is relatively affordable. Also, auto insurance is priced to risk. If a driver lives in a high-crime area, then the premiums will rise to cover the risks associated with theft. If they drive badly (get moving violations and accidents), premiums will go up, or in some cases, the insurer will drop the driver. Policies are priced for risk according to age as well; the youngest and oldest drivers pay more due to their propensity for causing losses. Those who drive well and present a lower risk get rewarded with lower premiums. Right now, the federal government is preventing insurers in some instances from risk-pricing health insurance to impose government-approved fairness. That means we all pay more, removing the incentive to lower risk.[/quote] [url]http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/14/holder-and-sebelius-trot-out-the-auto-insurance-canard/[/url] (Don't think I don't have the answer to this one bookmarked.) [QUOTE=Lambeth;28450419]Someone tell me why Obama has to listen to a [B]federal judge [/B]in Florida They arent on the same level of authority or anything like that.[/QUOTE] Because the US government was divided into 3 branches so as no one branch can hold all the power. The executive branch is balanced by the Judicial and the Legislative branches. Just because the court that made the ruling was from an inferior court of the Judicial branch, that doesn't mean that the President can ignore it. Doing so would be like if A Republican President just ignored, for example, Roe Vs. Wade before it got to the Supreme Court or a [B]Federal Judge's[/B] ruling against a piece of legislation he was promoting and wanted to enact. Only the Judicial branch can declare laws unconstitutional or constitutional. The Florida judge is a part of a branch that helps to keep the Executive branch (president) in check and because his ruling was the latest one, and the fact that he's a FEDERAL JUDGE, not a district judge, the President has to follow it unless he gets a stay or an appeal that rules in his favor. He and his administration were the defendants after all. Acting otherwise or ignoring the ruling could be grounds for contempt and possibly impeachment. Keep in mind that the President is sworn to uphold the US Constitution and that [B]the Presidency is a part of the Federal Government[/B]. The 3 branch system, believe it or not, was designed to be inefficient by design so as to prevent monarchies and dictatorships in the US. This is why the President can't just do whatever he wants. You have to remember, even the President himself is not above the law. Source: [url]http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html[/url] [url]http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html[/url] [url]http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html[/url] READ up. It might help you win an argument once in a while.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28451733]Intention doesn't matter when Freedom is being violated. What make's it illegal to live without health insurance? Answer me that.[/QUOTE] Although I don't agree with the penalty, it's there to prevent people from leeching from everyone else that is paying for their insurance. If everyone has the insurance, it means there is more money in the pool for when things go wrong. If you haven't been paying into the pool, that could potentially be a major drain. [QUOTE]Yes, but that's a moot point.[/QUOTE]However, health care/insurance isn't just a "for me" thing. People with poor health get diseases more often. More people with diseases equals more disease spread to healthier people. Further, if you can't get proper care for other problems (say serious injury to a limb), you might be out of a job. Any time a worker is lost for any reason, the company that hired that person loses out; both in terms of lost time from that worker, but also in terms of training costs for the new worker. Also, when you're out of a job for medical reasons it tends to be pretty easy to get welfare support. Making sure everyone can maintain good health improves our whole nation. Oh, and there's the little thing that universal health care costs countries that have it far less than our health care, and has better results.
Where was Glaber when the Republicans did... well pretty much everything.
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28451932]Where was Glaber when the Republicans did... well pretty much everything.[/QUOTE] Agreeing with them.
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28415877]China has a strong industry. As did the Soviet Union who had similar programmes, not saying it means anything good, but they do have strong industry. [editline]4th March 2011[/editline] Exactly why Capitalism is a breach of human rights.[/QUOTE] Technically every economic system is a breach of human rights in some way...
Silly greedy USA. I'm glad i live in Denmark where we atleast to some point care about our fellow danes.
What happens when Obama doesn't repeal the law after five days?
[QUOTE=Contag;28458464]What happens when Obama doesn't repeal the law after five days?[/QUOTE] Florida will break off and float out into the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. [editline]6th March 2011[/editline] Soon all of the south will follow in seceding from the Un--Oh shit! [img]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDz0GCv92FVjfNM7WIv7GnyuIBgN42Ufq6-LBV2NrhqbSnDYS5jA[/img]
[QUOTE=Glaber;28451733] Because the US government was divided into 3 branches so as no one branch can hold all the power. The executive branch is balanced by the Judicial and the Legislative branches. Just because the court that made the ruling was from an inferior court of the Judicial branch, that doesn't mean that the President can ignore it. Doing so would be like if A Republican President just ignored, for example, Roe Vs. Wade before it got to the Supreme Court or a [B]Federal Judge's[/B] ruling against a piece of legislation he was promoting and wanted to enact. Only the Judicial branch can declare laws unconstitutional or constitutional. The Florida judge is a part of a branch that helps to keep the Executive branch (president) in check and because his ruling was the latest one, and the fact that he's a FEDERAL JUDGE, not a district judge, the President has to follow it unless he gets a stay or an appeal that rules in his favor. He and his administration were the defendants after all. Acting otherwise or ignoring the ruling could be grounds for contempt and possibly impeachment. Keep in mind that the President is sworn to uphold the US Constitution and that [B]the Presidency is a part of the Federal Government[/B]. The 3 branch system, believe it or not, was designed to be inefficient by design so as to prevent monarchies and dictatorships in the US. This is why the President can't just do whatever he wants. You have to remember, even the President himself is not above the law. Source: [url]http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html[/url] [url]http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html[/url] [url]http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html[/url] READ up. It might help you win an argument once in a while.[/QUOTE] Obama is the executive of the country, Vinson is a judge of the state. [editline]6th March 2011[/editline] I think obama has more power than vinson.
Besides, it's not like the federal government hasn't been pissing on the Constitution for decades, why bother caring now?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;28458944]Obama is the executive of the country, Vinson is a judge of the state. [editline]6th March 2011[/editline] I think obama has more power than vinson.[/QUOTE] Checks and balances man. We learned this stuff in grade school.
[QUOTE=Contag;28458976]Besides, it's not like the federal government hasn't been pissing on the Constitution for decades, why bother caring now?[/QUOTE] That's an awful way of looking at it.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28451733] Yes, but that's a moot point.[/QUOTE] So it is alright if you must by car insurance. But got forbid, paying for a mandatory medical insurance?
[QUOTE=Strider*;28465935]That's an awful way of looking at it.[/QUOTE] Can you really see the American people making full use of the 2nd Amendment, and retaking their country in a very Lockean fashion?
[QUOTE=Wolfmatyr;28466782]So it is alright if you must by car insurance. But got forbid, paying for a mandatory medical insurance?[/QUOTE] Yes, because you don't have to drive and only if you are a driver. You could bike, hire a taxi, carter a bus, take a plane, raid a train, carpool. You have plenty of other options opposed to driving to get around. Heck I have a great uncle who doesn't drive and as a result, he doesn't need car insurance. He bikes, takes buses, and carpools with relatives. Living on the other hand, the only other choice is death or Not Life. auto insurance is a requirement for driving on public roads and can only be justified for being forced with having or buying a car. (Plus it the states that force it, not the federal government due to it's the states that issue the driver's licences.)
[QUOTE=Glaber;28473159]Yes, because you don't have to drive and only if you are a driver. You could bike, hire a taxi, carter a bus, take a plane, raid a train, carpool. You have plenty of other options opposed to driving to get around. Heck I have a great uncle who doesn't drive and as a result, he doesn't need car insurance. He bikes, takes buses, and carpools with relatives. Living on the other hand, the only other choice is death or Not Life. auto insurance is a requirement for driving on public roads and can only be justified for being forced with having or buying a car. (Plus it the states that force it, not the federal government due to it's the states that issue the driver's licences.)[/QUOTE] Does this mean I could lose the ability to be on my parents Health care until I'm 26? Cause that'd be pretty fucking lame. I can't afford prescriptions or my copay half the time, and now I'm gonna have to pay even more money?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.