EPTedit:
nvm
Healthcare Reform in the US - Page 41
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
edit: nvm | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On March 22 2010 11:47 LuckyFool wrote: Well this is pretty massive... I'm scared to turn on Fox News right now. I feel like bullets will fly out of the TV and kill me. not much is going on trust me | ||
|
BuGzlToOnl
United States5918 Posts
On March 22 2010 11:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Next is the Vote to Recommit..... What does this mean? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Terranist
United States2496 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On March 22 2010 11:46 LosingID8 wrote: As (hopefully) a future podiatrist, I don't know how I feel about this. It's still a bad bill, and it's really only covering a small part of health care. No one should be too excited. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Too_MuchZerg
Finland2818 Posts
| ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On March 22 2010 09:28 neVern wrote: The government's responsibility is to vote on the basis of the citizens of the United States while constrained under the Constitution. Health Care is not publicly accepted by a majority of society and it is not authorized by the Constitution. Therefore, it should be obvious that Health Care should not be passed. For better or worse, we are not a direct democracy, and congress is empowered by the constitution to regulate commerce, which health care is. So far the Supreme Court hasn't struck down Medicare or HIPAA, so I think it's pretty safe to assume that the health care reform bill is not going to be struck down either. Just because you "feel" something is unconstitutional, or some one told you it isn't, doesn't mean that's so. I can say that the right to own a firearm as a private citizen isn't actually in the constitution (I only see a clause protecting the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia) but the Supreme Court says that means any citizen has a right, so that's what it means until the Supreme Court says otherwise, or the constitution is amended. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
KunfO
United States81 Posts
New House Speaker Inc. | ||
|
KunfO
United States81 Posts
Chris Smith-NJ | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Potential to destroy the Senate fixes. | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On March 22 2010 11:56 KunfO wrote: Yeah, because Nancy Pelosi is really dependent upon the pro-life vote.Republicans are now forcing all pro-life democrats to end their careers. New House Speaker Inc. The pro-life democrats are being taken care of. That's what this weekend was all about. | ||
|
Try
United States1293 Posts
| ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On March 22 2010 11:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: It's pretty boring comparing to British, or Australian, or Korean which there would be punching, I assume, be happening at this stage. Just punching? | ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On March 22 2010 11:38 KunfO wrote: This will pass, but it won't pass the class action lawsuit of thousands of people against the government who will not stand to be forced to purchase insurance or be jailed. I know I'll be canceling my health insurance as soon as this bill is signed into law just so I can join it. You have insurance, and you're going to cancel it, to protest being forced to buy something that you already buy, but now might be able to buy more cheaply? Really? Are you possibly retarded? | ||
| ||
