should Obama's plan go through in the U.S...................

Post Reply New Topic

Why don't you look up the reasons provided by the 3 judges who say it is constitutional? You have internet access apparently. No need to be ignorant of the arguments.

Last time I checked, neither of us will decide the issue. Wish as hard as you like.

And the three judges that claimed it is are a bunch of idiots and/or leftwing activist judges, probably both.

The one that submitted the best reasoning in his ruling was the Judge in Florida that said the entire thing is unconstitutional.

Quite frankly, certain people here have kinda fit my hypothesis concerning liberals overestimating how much they actually know.

Comedy relief as usual.

Same reason the courts held up fugitive slave laws and the like. Do you think those were constitutional? I do not care about the opinion of these federal judges, they are political appointees. Do you have any opinion on it or do you just defer to your federal overlords?

If I was laughing, I would be laughing AT YOU. I'm not that kind of a person though. Since you and others here have demonstrated that you don't understand the facts, I'll try to explain it once again.

If Obamacare is constitutional, then what is to stop Government penalizing you for not buying the Chevy Volt? People are not buying that particular car because quite frankly it is a piece of junk, but you are arguing that Government can come in and fine people for not buying a car they don't want.

You are thinking like this is something that Government should provide, quite personally I don't think the Federal Government could run a child's birthday party. Further, the way Obamacare is worded, it is not approaching this as a tax, it approached it as a mandate (hence the reason why it is unconstitutional). The Federal Government can arguably regulate some things under the commerce clause. However, Obamacare takes Government power to a whole new level, because it is penalizing someone for choosing not to participate in commerce in the first place.

The entire premise of the Constitution is to dictate what powers Government does and does not have. I can understand some people here not getting it simply because they are Europeans and can't comprehend the fact the US is built on self-reliance, but the fact many Americans don't understand is an indication of the decline in the public school system.

You may think my example of that particular car is a ridiculous example, got news for you, it isn't. You are arguing that Government should have that kind of power, and if you look at the Constitution they don't have that power.

The tax argument is that you don't have to buy insurance, you can opt to pay a fine. it's little different from paying taxes, and then getting a break for certain activiites. It reverses the order.



Why not read their arguments and see? They lay out why they believe health care is unique. This issue really seems to upset you and yet you don't do any basic research? What does that say about you?



I both have an opinion and I do defer to the court system. What about you Johnny Reb?

I agree with the majority of judges so far that health care is a unique commodity. People who make no preparations can waltz into a hospital and get hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of free care that someone else has to pay for. We need a way to get people to prepare for those costs. But I don't decide the issue.

I have insurance. I go for my yearly check up next month. I don't have to beg others for help or run up their bills. The system isnt failing because of me.

At least one Judge completely destroyed that argument saying the Government can't have it both ways. It can't not be a tax during the legislative process and suddenly be a tax when it is challenged. Sorry, it is penalizing people for choosing not to participate in commerce so therefore it is unconstitutional.



I think I have read through them before, and I'm not inclined to read through it again. Their arguments were a farce, and what you are saying is that government has the power to tell you want car to buy, where you will live, etc.



Actually, I think he is referring to the Dredd Scott case, which pretty much guarenteed there was going to be a civil war.



Sorry, but just cause something sounds good, doesn't mean it still shouldn't be thrown out. The Judges in question are acting like the constitution is whatever they feel like on a given day, in actuality that is not their call to make. If the Constitution needs to be changed there is something known as a Constitutional Convention.



You are partially passing the cost on to other people, cause the insurance company gets its money from people paying into it. Furthermore, a lot of the problems is due to liability insurance to protect doctors from being sued.

If health insurance is "unique" then the justification for this new power must be specific. I see nothing the constitution pertaining to health insurance.

And are you really trying to say it's optional to buy insurance because you can choose to be fined and or go to jail instead? What type of weird doublespeak is that? Pretty sure that's the exact opposite of optional.

Talk to the district judges. The majority who have looked feel it is constitutional per the commerce clause. If you disagree, well, good for you skippy. Nobody cares.

As for going to jail? What? Criminal penalties are not allowed under the law. Stop making things up.

What happens if I don't pay the fine?

The IRS will take it from your returns eventually. If you do your taxes perfectly, they might get it from your wages at some point. If you live under a bridge, congratulations, you've escaped.

They are forbidden to pursue you criminally.

Or the two that didn't are conservative activist judges.

Seriously, you talk as if your reading ranks over that of judges who have devoted their lives to the constitution and the law.

Why not admit that reasonable minds can actually differ?

I would assume that all 5 judges have ruled best they could using all the information and experience at their disposal, and none intentionally acted in an activist manner. Odds and history would suggest there might be one activist among them, but that is probably it. Leaving at least four who ruled differently because well intentioned and well thought out minds are actually quite capable of reaching opposite conclusions, as hard as that seems to be for you to believe.

And as someone who believes society should be taking care of it's own well enough that no one ever has to.

I'm consistent to myself.

This shouldn't be a huge issue under the plan because they have tried to account for true poverty, although I am well aware that geographic cost of living differences make this impossible in practice.

Why should A be compelled by force or threat of force to provide and goods or services to B?

If a private citizen forces a redistribution of income he is called a thief. If the government does it, it is called compassionate.

ruveyn

My statement mandates no vehicle for how it should be accomplished. You are the one who inserted "force" and "government." But, yes, as human beings I absolutely believe we have the moral duty to see that all can eat and all have access to basic health care. We weren't all born with the same ability to care for ourselves, and none of us have the right to say that another being's existence is less worthy than our own.

Government is force. Plain and simple. Governments have the power to compel obedience to laws, whether the laws are just or unjust. Government have police forces (generally armed) and military forces (always armed). Court decisions are enforced at gunpoint if necessary. So I didn't introduce the idea. It is inherent in government. If you think you have a duty to help others, then do. Just do not force your ideas of duty on unwilling other people. you have not got the right to do so.

ruveyn