|
On January 26 2011 05:20 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 05:11 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote:
I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free.
[quote]
I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too. The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it? Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads? This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies. Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that. I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done? I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing. No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations. It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance. Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends. Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay? That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill. So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution? Do you see how bad your argument is now? You know we have the death penalty... And isn't that exactly how we justify it? It's obviously bullshit (as you point out), but I'm just saying that it seems like a poor example...
The death penalty is only constitutional when used in instances of murder and some cases of rape -- not for theft. It's not a given that the death penalty will be constitutional under any circumstances within 50 years given the development of 8th Amendment jurisprudence.
The point of my example is just because some law or government act seems to be for a good cause does not mean that it is constitutional. There are limits to what the government can do, and the government needs to be held to those limits.
|
On January 26 2011 05:23 Treemonkeys wrote:
Come on people, we have the freaking patriot it act, the constitution is meaningless.
What's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act?
|
On January 26 2011 05:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:20 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 05:11 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:
[quote]
The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it?
Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads?
This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies. Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that. I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done? I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing. No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations. It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance. Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends. Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay? That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill. So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution? Do you see how bad your argument is now? You know we have the death penalty... And isn't that exactly how we justify it? It's obviously bullshit (as you point out), but I'm just saying that it seems like a poor example... The death penalty is only constitutional when used in instances of murder and some cases of rape -- not for theft. It's not a given that the death penalty will be constitutional under any circumstances within 50 years given the development of 8th Amendment jurisprudence. The point of my example is just because some law or government act seems to be for a good cause does not mean that it is constitutional. There are limits to what the government can do, and the government needs to be held to those limits.
Yeah, like it's possible to hold the organization with the most map power and the biggest military to any standard.
Obey the rules, or else!
|
On January 26 2011 05:22 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 05:19 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 05:11 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet? This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies. Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that. I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done? I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing. No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations. It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance. Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends. Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay? That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill. So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution? Do you see how bad your argument is now? No, that would be a false dilemma. The true problem is that we are stuck with the bill and it's the logical solution to keeping costs down. When you are dealt your hand, play it logically. Don't throw away a card that is the reason the whole hand is functioning. Is it logical to take a moving part out of a machine and still expecting it to work? My argument is based on the fact that the bill is NOT going to be repealed and the reason the bill even will function in the first place and keep premium costs down is because it is being spread over more people. Don't try and tell me my argument is bad without understanding where I'm coming from and why I'm making a point. Again, the problem is that you're presuming the constitutionality of the bill because it the "solution" seems logical. That's the problem. I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that it is what we have to do to make it work. Stop making it a question of constitutionality because of you're inability to read the fact that I'm not discussing it's constitutionality because: 1. I'm not a constitutional scholar. 2. I'm not the federal judge who determines that. 3. I don't care. Herp derp I can't read and I talking about something completely irrelevant to what you're saying.
Yea man, he's talking specifically about the constitutionality of the bill, something I (and probably most people in this thread) can't really claim to know anything about. And seriously you kind of have to get into the nitty gritty of the bill to get into.
The bill is not that simple though. It is not simply "you must buy health insurance." I don't know why Daunt is pretending that it is.
|
On January 26 2011 05:25 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:23 Treemonkeys wrote:
Come on people, we have the freaking patriot it act, the constitution is meaningless. What's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act?
Seriously? Do you know what the constitution says?
|
On January 26 2011 05:22 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 05:19 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 05:11 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines."
Do you see the problem yet? This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies. Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that. I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done? I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing. No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations. It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance. Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends. Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay? That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill. So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution? Do you see how bad your argument is now? No, that would be a false dilemma. The true problem is that we are stuck with the bill and it's the logical solution to keeping costs down. When you are dealt your hand, play it logically. Don't throw away a card that is the reason the whole hand is functioning. Is it logical to take a moving part out of a machine and still expecting it to work? My argument is based on the fact that the bill is NOT going to be repealed and the reason the bill even will function in the first place and keep premium costs down is because it is being spread over more people. Don't try and tell me my argument is bad without understanding where I'm coming from and why I'm making a point. Again, the problem is that you're presuming the constitutionality of the bill because it the "solution" seems logical. That's the problem. I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that it is what we have to do to make it work. Stop making it a question of constitutionality because of you're inability to read the fact that I'm not discussing it's constitutionality because: 1. I'm not a constitutional scholar. 2. I'm not the federal judge who determines that. 3. I don't care. Herp derp I can't read and I talking about something completely irrelevant to what you're saying.
See, you're the perfect example of what is wrong with a large portion of the country right now. People want to see things get done without giving a though to whether those acts and news laws are constitutional. The constitution isn't just some ancient piece of paper. It's what ultimately protects us from our government. It's the difference between us and most countries on the planet. Too many people in this country don't even understand where their rights come from and take the constitution for granted. It's really sad.
|
On January 26 2011 05:26 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:25 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:23 Treemonkeys wrote:
Come on people, we have the freaking patriot it act, the constitution is meaningless. What's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act? Seriously? Do you know what the constitution says?
Yes, I do. It's a very short document, easy to read. Answer my question: what's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act?
|
On January 26 2011 05:26 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:22 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 05:19 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 05:11 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that. I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done? I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing. No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations. It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance. Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends. Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay? That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill. So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution? Do you see how bad your argument is now? No, that would be a false dilemma. The true problem is that we are stuck with the bill and it's the logical solution to keeping costs down. When you are dealt your hand, play it logically. Don't throw away a card that is the reason the whole hand is functioning. Is it logical to take a moving part out of a machine and still expecting it to work? My argument is based on the fact that the bill is NOT going to be repealed and the reason the bill even will function in the first place and keep premium costs down is because it is being spread over more people. Don't try and tell me my argument is bad without understanding where I'm coming from and why I'm making a point. Again, the problem is that you're presuming the constitutionality of the bill because it the "solution" seems logical. That's the problem. I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that it is what we have to do to make it work. Stop making it a question of constitutionality because of you're inability to read the fact that I'm not discussing it's constitutionality because: 1. I'm not a constitutional scholar. 2. I'm not the federal judge who determines that. 3. I don't care. Herp derp I can't read and I talking about something completely irrelevant to what you're saying. Yea man, he's talking specifically about the constitutionality of the bill, something I (and probably most people in this thread) can't really claim to know anything about. And seriously you kind of have to get into the nitty gritty of the bill to get into. The bill is not that simple though. It is not simply "you must buy health insurance." I don't know why you're pretending that it is.
The constitution isn't complicated at all. If you can read you should be able to understand it.
|
On January 26 2011 05:26 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:22 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 05:19 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 05:11 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies.
Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that. I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done? I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing. No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations. It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance. Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends. Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay? That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill. So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution? Do you see how bad your argument is now? No, that would be a false dilemma. The true problem is that we are stuck with the bill and it's the logical solution to keeping costs down. When you are dealt your hand, play it logically. Don't throw away a card that is the reason the whole hand is functioning. Is it logical to take a moving part out of a machine and still expecting it to work? My argument is based on the fact that the bill is NOT going to be repealed and the reason the bill even will function in the first place and keep premium costs down is because it is being spread over more people. Don't try and tell me my argument is bad without understanding where I'm coming from and why I'm making a point. Again, the problem is that you're presuming the constitutionality of the bill because it the "solution" seems logical. That's the problem. I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that it is what we have to do to make it work. Stop making it a question of constitutionality because of you're inability to read the fact that I'm not discussing it's constitutionality because: 1. I'm not a constitutional scholar. 2. I'm not the federal judge who determines that. 3. I don't care. Herp derp I can't read and I talking about something completely irrelevant to what you're saying. Yea man, he's talking specifically about the constitutionality of the bill, something I (and probably most people in this thread) can't really claim to know anything about. And seriously you kind of have to get into the nitty gritty of the bill to get into. The bill is not that simple though. It is not simply "you must buy health insurance." I don't know why you're pretending that it is.
Of course the bill is complex, but it's a large part of the reason it would even function. We can't just repeal it piece by piece and still expect it to function. Everything is complex, but I'm not going to sit here and type out every cause and effect as to why removing portions of it would cause repercussions. I'm not that patient.
Also, the constitution isn't hard to understand. The hard part of the constitution is how far does it extend and interpreting it. Interpretations change over time and if the bill's mandate is to hold up despite already being ruled on by one judge(IIRC), then that would show an evolution in the interpretation of it.
|
On January 26 2011 05:27 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:26 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:25 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:23 Treemonkeys wrote:
Come on people, we have the freaking patriot it act, the constitution is meaningless. What's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act? Seriously? Do you know what the constitution says? Yes, I do. It's a very short document, easy to read. Answer my question: what's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act?
Unreasonable search and seizure.
|
On January 26 2011 05:25 Treemonkeys wrote:
Yeah, like it's possible to hold the organization with the most map power and the biggest military to any standard.
Obey the rules, or else!
If the Supreme Court tells the Executive or Legislative branch to do something, they do it. Please list me a single example where they didn't listen to the Supreme Court. The only one I can think of was Andrew Johnson's threat.
|
On January 26 2011 05:28 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:27 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:26 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:25 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:23 Treemonkeys wrote:
Come on people, we have the freaking patriot it act, the constitution is meaningless. What's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act? Seriously? Do you know what the constitution says? Yes, I do. It's a very short document, easy to read. Answer my question: what's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act? Unreasonable search and seizure.
Be more specific. What in the Patriot Act allows "unreasonable" searches and seizures? What is the definition of "unreasonable"?
|
According to the constitution, all powers not explicitly mentioned in the constitution are granted to the states and the people, not the federal government. This makes 95% of what the federal goverment does "illegal." The constitution is irrelevant.
|
On January 26 2011 05:27 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:26 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 05:22 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:20 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 05:19 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 05:11 stevarius wrote:On January 26 2011 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done? I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing. No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations. It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance. Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends. Stop pretending a healthcare insurance mandate is a slippery slope because it's not. I'm not taking a position on this issue in this thread because it would be a waste of time, but there is a reason the mandate is there. It is to spread the costs to ensure premiums don't skyrocket out of control and is more of a damage control aspect to a necessity to live a healthy life(health insurance). I'm not debating the constitutionality, but you're implying it's a slippery slope of governmental power intruding into your life when it's not. The governmental mandate of people to have health insurance is arguably the only way to keep premiums reasonable given the introduction of people who incur a high cost for their care, etc. Example: Would taxes be cheaper per person if ten people had to pay or if 20 people had to pay? That's the justification for it and working so hard to rid of the mandate might cause premium price problems on top the ones people already claim are happening considering I don't see them repealing the bill. So if I argued that executing all murderers, rapists, and thieves was the only means to prevent and discourage murders, rape, and theft, does that make execution constitution? Do you see how bad your argument is now? No, that would be a false dilemma. The true problem is that we are stuck with the bill and it's the logical solution to keeping costs down. When you are dealt your hand, play it logically. Don't throw away a card that is the reason the whole hand is functioning. Is it logical to take a moving part out of a machine and still expecting it to work? My argument is based on the fact that the bill is NOT going to be repealed and the reason the bill even will function in the first place and keep premium costs down is because it is being spread over more people. Don't try and tell me my argument is bad without understanding where I'm coming from and why I'm making a point. Again, the problem is that you're presuming the constitutionality of the bill because it the "solution" seems logical. That's the problem. I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that it is what we have to do to make it work. Stop making it a question of constitutionality because of you're inability to read the fact that I'm not discussing it's constitutionality because: 1. I'm not a constitutional scholar. 2. I'm not the federal judge who determines that. 3. I don't care. Herp derp I can't read and I talking about something completely irrelevant to what you're saying. Yea man, he's talking specifically about the constitutionality of the bill, something I (and probably most people in this thread) can't really claim to know anything about. And seriously you kind of have to get into the nitty gritty of the bill to get into. The bill is not that simple though. It is not simply "you must buy health insurance." I don't know why you're pretending that it is. The constitution isn't complicated at all. If you can read you should be able to understand it.
Oh really? Then sheesh, I could be a Supreme Court Justice if that's all it means!
/sarcasm
|
On January 26 2011 05:29 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:28 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:27 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:26 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:25 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:23 Treemonkeys wrote:
Come on people, we have the freaking patriot it act, the constitution is meaningless. What's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act? Seriously? Do you know what the constitution says? Yes, I do. It's a very short document, easy to read. Answer my question: what's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act? Unreasonable search and seizure. Be more specific. What in the Patriot Act allows "unreasonable" searches and seizures? What is the definition of "unreasonable"?
Spying on anyone they want to is unreasonable.
|
|
|
On January 26 2011 05:30 Treemonkeys wrote:
According to the constitution, all powers not explicitly mentioned in the constitution are granted to the states and the people, not the federal government. This makes 95% of what the federal goverment does "illegal." The constitution is irrelevant.
Like what? Every single bill passed by Congress has a hook to one of the clauses in the Constitution. Usually interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause, such as the ACA.
|
On January 26 2011 05:29 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:28 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:27 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:26 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 26 2011 05:25 domovoi wrote:On January 26 2011 05:23 Treemonkeys wrote:
Come on people, we have the freaking patriot it act, the constitution is meaningless. What's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act? Seriously? Do you know what the constitution says? Yes, I do. It's a very short document, easy to read. Answer my question: what's unconstitutional about the Patriot Act? Unreasonable search and seizure. Be more specific. What in the Patriot Act allows "unreasonable" searches and seizures? What is the definition of "unreasonable"?
Don't ask that question, you don't know what you're getting yourself into.
Answering that question takes too long because there are too many scenarios and court cases that define it. I could sit here for an hour and copy paste court cases and their decisions and you wouldn't even have half the concept down. Not. Even. Close.
|
On January 26 2011 05:31 Treemonkeys wrote:
Spying on anyone they want to is unreasonable.
The Patriot Act doesn't allow the federal government to spy on anyone they want. Try again.
|
On January 26 2011 05:21 Hikko wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 05:18 silynxer wrote:On January 26 2011 05:09 TanGeng wrote:
It is insulating people from the true cost of risky behavior. This is the definition of moral hazard. Learn it. So why are the people in Europe not living unhealthier then? If the true cost of risky behavior is insulated but people are behaving less risky it hardly qualifies as moral hazard. I don't know if you've met many people from England, but they have teeth as nasty as it gets
Obviously you are just trolling, but this is one of the stereotypes US ppl have that I never understood. Been to england many times and never expierienced something like that, would like to know where these stereotypes comes from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
