• Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare mandate
    82 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;31703206]Are you serious? How about roads, are you not forced to pay for roads?[/QUOTE] [URL="http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=5165123"]OBJECTION![/URL] I believe you are reffering to this: [quote=US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8]The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; [B] To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;[/B][/quote] But in case you haven't been following the money, roads are paid for using Tax dollars. Unless it's a private road, the citizen and the Road Construction Crew never engage in commerce. The mandate forces you to make a direct purchase from the company providing the coverage. thus forcing the citizen to engage in commerce or be punished.
Objection schtick is getting old, please stop thank you [editline]12th August 2011[/editline] I don't understand why you can't make alterations to the law instead of just obliterating it.
Normally, such things should be possible while still in the development process or with a severablity clause. However, this law got passed too quickly and neither side got to see what all was in it. Furthermore, without the severablity clause, if just a part of the law is found unconstitutional and struck down, it's suppose to take the whole law down with it. the only way for it not to is with that clause as it allows parts to be nullified while the rest of the law stands. The entire thing has to be restarted.
[QUOTE=Glaber;31702849]No wonder it stunk worse than a skunk.[/QUOTE] If you can smell bad literature then I'm surprised you can smell anything over your own threads.
[QUOTE=Glaber;31703956]Normally, such things should be possible while still in the development process or with a severablity clause. However, this law got passed too quickly and neither side got to see what all was in it. Furthermore, without the severablity clause, if just a part of the law is found unconstitutional and struck down, it's suppose to take the whole law down with it. the only way for it not to is with that clause as it allows parts to be nullified while the rest of the law stands. The entire thing has to be restarted.[/QUOTE] the bill took a year to pass because the republicans kept saying no If I remember correctly
[quote] unconstitutional to require all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty. [/quote] So if thats true that means they'll also repeal that bullshit mandatory auto insurance law right? RIGHT?!
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;31704035]So if thats true that means they'll also repeal that bullshit mandatory auto insurance law right? RIGHT?![/QUOTE] One would think that this would be the case, but no. the auto insurance law is constitutional as it's a State level law and requires a Driver's license and a vehicle in order to enforce. Now you know how other posters here promote public transportation? For one to useing public transportation, auto insurance is pointless and if that's all they use or they also get rides from other people (reletives, Taxis, Carpols), then they don't need auto insurance at all and it can't be forced upon them. The auto Insurance law can only be enforced on drivers where as the Health care mandate is something that, if enforced, would be done so on the entire country's citizenship with no way out. Remember. You can opt not to drive and still get to where you want.
Your argument that it's okay for the government to pay for roads is that everyone uses it, but somehow that doesn't work for healthcare? Explain.
[QUOTE=Glaber;31704321] The auto Insurance law can only be enforced on drivers where as the Health care mandate is something that, if enforced, would be done so on the entire country's citizenship with no way out. [/QUOTE] There's a way out You can buy insurance
An individual mandate is wrong when it comes to something like healthcare. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that can be done. However, the auto insurance mandate is state law, in every state exept New Hampshire, which is covered in the tenth amendment.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];31704864']An individual mandate is wrong when it comes to something like healthcare. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that can be done. However, the auto insurance mandate is state law, in every state exept New Hampshire, which is covered in the tenth amendment.[/QUOTE] I'm asking you, why is this a bad idea beyond the notion that you don't think it's constitutional?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31704895]I'm asking you, why is this a bad idea beyond the notion that you don't think it's constitutional?[/QUOTE] Well, why should you be required to buy something if you don't want it. It effects no one but you. Also, You can get emergency care at any hospital. They won't let you die, no matter how little health insurance or money you have. Third, this is the goverment trying to make decisions for people that people can make for themselves. Next the goverment will mandate you eating more healthy food, then they will regulate how much exersize you can get or how much sleep you must have to get certain jobs, then they will choose how much you can pay employees, and how long you can be on the internet for, and require you to have certain gas milage on your car, and it will just go on and on. The goverment shouldn't control your life because a small group of people think they can make better decisions than you.
[QUOTE=Glaber;31703679]But in case you haven't been following the money, roads are paid for using Tax dollars.[/QUOTE] Paid for by tax dollars, aka the ideal means of paying for universal healthcare. A form of public service, like building and maintaining roads. [QUOTE='[sluggo];31705081']Well, why should you be required to buy something if you don't want it. It effects no one but you. Also, You can get emergency care at any hospital. They won't let you die, no matter how little health insurance or money you have. Third, this is the goverment trying to make decisions for people that people can make for themselves. Next the goverment will mandate you eating more healthy food, then they will regulate how much exersize you can get or how much sleep you must have to get certain jobs, then they will choose how much you can pay employees, and how long you can be on the internet for, and require you to have certain gas milage on your car, and it will just go on and on. The goverment shouldn't control your life because a small group of people think they can make better decisions than you.[/QUOTE] I find it intriguing that your entire viewpoint in this argument is "I have money and I am healthy. Also your last bit is on the verge of Glenn Beck paranoia.
[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;31705083]Paid for by tax dollars, aka the ideal means of paying for universal healthcare. A form of public service, like building and maintaining roads.[/QUOTE] but this isnt paid for by tax dollars this is telling you to buy insurance from a company thats corporatism, not health reform. thats big business and government partnering up to fuck the little man.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31705115]but this isnt paid for by tax dollars this is telling you to buy insurance from a company thats corporatism, not health reform. thats big business and government partnering up to fuck the little man.[/QUOTE] And I personally don't think this bill does the right thing. However, single-payer healthcare in its correct form would be incredibly difficult to push through any US Congress. [editline]12th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE='[sluggo];31705081']Well, why should you be required to buy something if you don't want it. It effects no one but you.[/QUOTE] So you object to being forced to buy insurance, I can understand that. So what's your beef with single-payer healthcare?
I honestly think the citation of states rights here is an example of why the concept of states rights is so flawed to begin with. The idea that individual local governments can restrict laws both of a financial and civil nature based on their own individual whimsy is just plain stupid. It's been used throughout history as a tool to both hold back social progress and civil rights when the overwhelming nation-wide sentiment was for these changes. It was that way with state-decided slavery. It was that way with state-by-state moralist laws that stopped interracial and gay marriage. And now it's still that way with the lower-class strangling insurance and anti-welfare attacks. States just continue to prove they're too selfish and stupid to be trusted with the ability to override the Federal Government.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;31704675]There's a way out You can buy insurance[/QUOTE] OB- Oh wait, I over used that. I believe you are either being sarcastic or your argument fails to take into account that insurance is subscription based. Insurance has to be renewed at least once per year. and because of the Mandate, you are forced to go though the same process annually, where as with auto insurance you can get rid of your car, quit driving and cancel your auto insurance and thus exit the cycle. In order to exit the cycle of having to renew your health insurance with the mandate in place, you would have to commit suicide.
snip, didn't see the second page
I do addend my above post however by saying that I don't care so much about this particular bill being overridden, since it is a diluted excuse for a healthcare bill that we could do a good deal more inclusive and improved. It's mostly the WAY they're going about fighting the bill and the reasons behind it that are idiotic. Also Glaber, I'm curious to know your opinion on by previously stated opinion on state's rights.
[QUOTE=Glaber;31705329]I believe you are either being sarcastic or your argument fails to take into account that insurance is subscription based. Insurance has to be renewed at least once per year. and because of the Mandate, you are forced to go though the same process annually, where as with auto insurance you can get rid of your car, quit driving and cancel your auto insurance and thus exit the cycle. In order to exit the cycle of having to renew your health insurance with the mandate in place, you would have to commit suicide.[/QUOTE] Okay, but really ask yourself: How often do people actually get rid of their car insurance and stop driving altogether? I mean really now.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;31700364]It should be up to the states, not the federal government. The 10th Amendment says that any power not specifically given to the federal government must be given to the states.[/QUOTE] You're telling me that if I get into a car accident, I'm gonna have to wheel my ass to the next state so I won't die because for not being able to afford the necessary treatment, or go bankrupt from medical expenses? Don't you realize that if you make it so states have that kind of mandate, that they'll just make it illegal to go to the next state over in an attempt to get those specific services? When it comes to something that everyone in the nation will inevitably need at some point in their lifetime, consistency is key.
[QUOTE=DanRatherman;31705372]I do addend my above post however by saying that I don't care so much about this particular bill being overridden, since it is a diluted excuse for a healthcare bill that we could do a good deal more inclusive and improved. It's mostly the WAY they're going about fighting the bill and the reasons behind it that are idiotic. Also Glaber, I'm curious to know your opinion on by previously stated opinion on state's rights.[/QUOTE] You want it, you got it. [QUOTE=DanRatherman;31705162]I honestly think the citation of states rights here is an example of why the concept of states rights is so flawed to begin with. The idea that individual local governments can restrict laws both of a financial and civil nature based on their own individual whimsy is just plain stupid. It's been used throughout history as a tool to both hold back social progress and civil rights when the overwhelming nation-wide sentiment was for these changes. It was that way with state-decided slavery. It was that way with state-by-state moralist laws that stopped interracial and gay marriage. And now it's still that way with the lower-class strangling insurance and anti-welfare attacks. States just continue to prove they're too selfish and stupid to be trusted with the ability to override the Federal Government.[/QUOTE] I believe your opinion to be flawed. While true that it can do as you say, it can also prove to be a tool useful in social experimentation. For example, instead of plunging an entire nation into a new social program or forcing everybody to accept a new social action as normal, it can be tested in smaller numbers and if it proves to work or be beneficial the results can seep out into the other states. now where your opinion gets really flawed is your belief that they can overwrite the federal government. As much as they would like to believe they can, they cannot. Their efforts to opt out are actually meaningless except in symbolism. [QUOTE=Megafanx13;31705404]Okay, but really ask yourself: How often do people actually get rid of their car insurance and stop driving altogether? I mean really now.[/QUOTE] And let me ask you. Is Driving mandatory? If you really wanted, you could argue that living isn't mandatory, but then we'd be rationalizing suicide just for the sake of avoiding buying Health Insurance. And really, who want's that? I suspect the frequency for people actually getting rid of their car insurance and giving up driving altogether is lower than Obama's Approval rating. However that's not the point. You see, Driving is a convince, not something that necessary to everyday life for everyone. People can get by by using Taxis and Buses. by getting rides from friends, co-workers, and family. There are all sorts of travel options that make having auto insurance pointless. Driving is also a revocable privilege as people can and do loose their licenses. Now when it comes to health insurance, the thing you have to remember is that it is unfortunately a business in the US, and as such, they can only afford so much. Transfer the costs to the US Government for every man woman and child and you start running out of money for Federal Discretionary spending. Plus, on a side issue barely related, as Social Security should demonstrate soon enough, when you have a welfare program you have to keep it funded with actual money, you can't just continue arrowing from it leaving behind IOU's.
[QUOTE=Glaber;31705329]OB- Oh wait, I over used that. I believe you are either being sarcastic or your argument fails to take into account that insurance is subscription based. Insurance has to be renewed at least once per year. and because of the Mandate, you are forced to go though the same process annually, where as with auto insurance you can get rid of your car, quit driving and cancel your auto insurance and thus exit the cycle. In order to exit the cycle of having to renew your health insurance with the mandate in place, you would have to commit suicide.[/QUOTE] Driving is pretty much a necessity to persons over 18, whether it be a far away job or reaching a grocery store. The whole "'forcing' you to buy healthcare" argument is terribly overblown, just saying. Had the bill's original provisions been put into effect, it would be easy to purchase healthcare anyway. In fact, a way you can escape the requirement to buy car insurance is to take a public bus. In the same way, you can escape the requirement to buy health insurance is to take a public option- oh wait nope that was taken out. Sorry, guess that means the bill was "revised" into a self-fulfilling failure. Your party decided to build the bill up into something that sucked so they could kill it on the grounds that "it sucked" wooptydoo.
We went from nothing and now we're back to nothing. What did we lose? [b]NOTHING.[/b]
[QUOTE=Glaber;31705803]I believe your opinion to be flawed. While true that it can do as you say, it can also prove to be a tool useful in social experimentation. For example, instead of plunging an entire nation into a new social program or forcing everybody to accept a new social action as normal, it can be tested in smaller numbers and if it proves to work or be beneficial the results can seep out into the other states.[/QUOTE] Civil rights, such as marriage or abortion, should not come down to whether or not they "work", in any one state.
Why is it that we have to buy health insurance or else, that's stupid.
[QUOTE=Clementine;31705966]Why is it that we have to buy health insurance or else, that's stupid.[/QUOTE] Did you not read the thread?
[QUOTE=joes33431;31705865]Driving is pretty much a necessity to persons over 18, whether it be a far away job or reaching a grocery store.[/QUOTE] no its not [editline]13th August 2011[/editline] in fact i make it fairly well without driving. i can walk anywhere i wanna go and public transportation can take me if i dont wanna walk
Public transportation is pretty shitty in some states though
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31706099]in fact i make it fairly well without driving. i can walk anywhere i wanna go and public transportation can take me if i dont wanna walk[/QUOTE] That's not the case in a good number of areas.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.