national health care...how awesome!

[Johnnyorganic]

really? has it not been upheld twice and struck down twice? i follow the news pretty closely, and have not heard of any other cases.

I explained this point.

No other case has this many states as plaintiffs.

exactly, that is what amuses me. where in the constitution does it prohibit congress from establishing a law that allows you to keep your kid on yourpolicy for another year or two?

And where in the Constitution does it stipulate you must be required to do so?

Hint: The Constitution does not mention health care AT ALL!

Which means it is a function of the states, or the people.

down syndrome porn.

and rube roy.

but don't count your chickens before they hatch

I'm just speculating.

As I stated previously - it's all academic.

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

 

[UncleBuck]

Yes but I've told you 391 times, that's not what we started off debating. You have shifted your argument to talking about justified killing by cops. I said if a person refuses to cooperate all the way through, they will eventually kill him.

so you are dense. thanks for clearing that up.

talking about justified use of deadly force by the police is very relevant to the argument. it IS the argument.

you can refuse to cooperate all you want and no one may kill you without facing consequences.

for the 390th time, only if you threaten the life of an officer will they have any reason to kill you.

case closed.

Read Spooner or remain dense. Over and out.

is that what you tell your cult members, or is that what the cult leader told you?

 

[UncleBuck]

I explained this point.

No other case has this many states as plaintiffs.

fair enough, but no matter how many states involved the question is the same: constitutional or not?

current count: 2 yeas, 2 nays.

And where in the Constitution does it stipulate you must be required to do so?

nowhere in the constitution does it state that you must keep your kid on your policy until age 26, not 25.

but the constitution does give power to congress to establish laws such as 'you may keep your kid on your policy until age 26'. not sure why the judge found this unconstitutional. but who knows what is in the water down in gainesville, florida.

Hint: The Constitution does not mention health care AT ALL!

Which means it is a function of the states, or the people.

the constitution does not make mention of many things governed at a federal level.

should we outlaw social security?

so what if all 50 states followed massachussetes' lead, and compelled their citizens to insure themselves if they are able?

what would your argument be then?

I'm just speculating.

As I stated previously - it's all academic.

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

if you were speculating, you would have typed using the conditional rather than the future conjugation. or 'if' and not 'when'.

what chickens am i counting before they hatch? that flew over my head.

 

[Dan Kone]

fair enough, but no matter how many states involved the question is the same: constitutional or not?

I see nothing in the constitution that would make this health care policy illegal but keep medicare legal. I'm going to say it's constitutional based on the expressed intent of the constitution which lists promoting the general welfare as one of the purposes of the document. If you intemperate the constitution that way, both this health care policy and medicare are legal.

Keep in mind that this document was written in the 18th century when health insurance didn't exist.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

fair enough, but no matter how many states involved the question is the same: constitutional or not?

current count: 2 yeas, 2 nays.

Apples and oranges.

Previous judgments address portions of MessiahCare.

This one covers the whole magilla.

nowhere in the constitution does it state that you must keep your kid on your policy until age 26, not 25.

but the constitution does give power to congress to establish laws such as 'you may keep your kid on your policy until age 26'. not sure why the judge found this unconstitutional. but who knows what is in the water down in gainesville, florida.




the constitution does not make mention of many things governed at a federal level.

Which means they are the functions of the states, or the people.

should we outlaw social security?

Yes.

so what if all 50 states followed massachussetes' lead, and compelled their citizens to insure themselves if they are able?

what would your argument be then?

I would not have an argument as long as the federal government did not mandate it. If states decide to do something, it is their business as long as what they do does not violate the Constitution.

And I am sure many state courts would toss out that provision on Constitutional grounds.

if you were speculating, you would have typed using the conditional rather than the future conjugation. or 'if' and not 'when'.

what chickens am i counting before they hatch? that flew over my head.

You seem as sure that it will be upheld as I am it will be overturned.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

The severability issue is HUGE!

No portion of the law may be thrown out of MessiahCare due to lack of a severance clause in the bill. Democrats were in such a hurry to pass an unread bill they left it out.

The other cases address portions of the bill, which means they are irrelevant. This one struck down the entire law, which is why it has a very good chance of being reviewed by the SCOTUS.

So IF (that's for you, Buck) the bill is ultimately ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, rabid Proggies will have the Democratic Congress to thank.

Left unprepared for ObamaCare ruling

 

[Dan Kone]

The severability issue is HUGE!

No portion of the law may be thrown out of MessiahCare due to lack of a severance clause in the bill. Democrats were in such a hurry to pass an unread bill they left it out.

That wasn't a mistake or oversight due to people not reading the bill. The entire thing doesn't work without a mandate. You can force health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions without forcing everyone to buy insurance. Otherwise everyone would just wait until they got sick before buying insurance. That would ruin the insurance companies.

There was more than 6 months of debate over the health care bill. There was no hurry. The republicans passed their repeal of the health care bill in a couple hours with no real discussion about it. Why complain about the democrats for ONLY having over half a year of debate but think it's ok that republicans repealed in without any debate?

Not to worry. This will get laughed out of the supreme court.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

That wasn't a mistake or oversight due to people not reading the bill. The entire thing doesn't work without a mandate. You can force health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions without forcing everyone to buy insurance. Otherwise everyone would just wait until they got sick before buying insurance. That would ruin the insurance companies.

There was more than 6 months of debate over the health care bill. There was no hurry. The republicans passed their repeal of the health care bill in a couple hours with no real discussion about it. Why complain about the democrats for ONLY having over half a year of debate but think it's ok that republicans repealed in without any debate?

Not to worry. This will get laughed out of the supreme court.

The issue had been discussed since before Obama was inaugurated.

I am not talking about the issue.

Much of the bill was crafted out of the public eye. When Princess Pelosi said we would have to pass the bill in order to know what was in it, she was dead serious.

I am talking about the actual bill. The version that was voted on. The space of time between the release of the final 2,000 page version and the vote was very short. At the time, many members complained they did not have enough time to read and digest it. The bill was not vetted properly.

The absence of a severance clause is the smoking gun. Virtually no bill is passed without one.

Democrats missed it because they rushed it's passage in order to get it done before Americans could see what was in it.

The Democrats fucked up the passage of a fucked up law.

MessiahCare is dead in the water.

The Constitutional Moment: Judge Vinson introduces ObamaCare to Madison and Marshall.

 

[Mindmelted]

It will fail like him at president....

You can not force people to buy something they can not afford.

 

[Dan Kone]

The issue had been discussed since before Obama was inaugurated.

I am not talking about the issue.

Much of the bill was crafted out of the public eye. When Princess Pelosi said we would have to pass the bill in order to know what was in it, she was dead serious.

I am talking about the actual bill. The version that was voted on. The space of time between the release of the final 2,000 page version and the vote was very short. At the time, many members complained they did not have enough time to read and digest it. The bill was not vetted properly.

That's a lot of partisan rhetoric without really saying much.

The absence of a severance clause is the smoking gun. Virtually no bill is passed without one.

And that's a huge problem why?

MessiahCare is dead in the water.

If this even makes it to the supreme court, which I find unlikely, it will get laughed out of the court. Just because an activist judge says it's unconstitutional does not make this true.

 

[Dan Kone]

It will fail like him at president....

You can not force people to buy something they can not afford.

We force people to pay for medicare. What makes this unconstitutional but medicare constitutional?

 

[Mindmelted]

We force people to pay for medicare. What makes this unconstitutional but medicare constitutional?

Typical...Putting words in my mouth that i did not say.

You are for sure a obama puppet..

 

[sputniknz]

waivers are being issued so that the transition is less bumpy. they're not permanent either. they're granted on a case-by-case basis and they are no surprise, at least to me. I knew some organizations were going to apply for and receive waivers... to a reasonable person that doesn't seem weird, to somebody suffering from delusions and paranoia that means there's a backroom, cement shoes if you don't cooperate, mafia kingpin chicago muslim socialist conspiracy going on....

here's what I most noticed about the article.



45 of 222 waivers, a whopping 27.27% of all waivers have been granted to labor organizations. the vast minority of waivers granted have gone to labor organizations.... why that is a red flag only jeff knows....

You sir are correct. And from that i take you to be something of a democrat.

I am not in the US, i am in New Zealand. We have the healtcare plans you had all been dreaming of for years. Full credit to Obama and his outfit for giving it to you, but YOU the people (mostly republicans from what i hear) need to be patient. The waivers are neccesary for the transition to be smooth. I mean come on, this type of healthcare reform could be expected to take a decade. But these waivers suggest the transition should be in effect by 2014. So come on, be patient. Dont vote Republicans, give Obama the turn he deserves. Cant you see he is saddened by the lack of unity in your country, sure you've taken knocks but for fuck sake the man is trying to do good, he is the first black man in power and he wouldn't abuse that priveledge he needs your help!

Obama is doing the best he can for you guys, look at the shit he had to clean up when that other fuckwit you had in the oval office left, dont even say his name - it makes me sick!

Go Obama!.... the rest of the world can see his intentions are the best thing to hit the U.S. since god knows when. Work with him, not against him. Dont watch FOX/CNN, kill Bill O'reily and hang Bush by his neck for murder, Palin and that fuckwit McCain can suck a fat cock too....

 

[MuyLocoNC]

I see nothing has changed around here in a year. Still a pack of liberal idiots trying to justify the subversion of our beloved Republic.

Activist judge? Really? I've read about 30 pages of his decision so far and the only way someone could call him an activist is if you think following the Constitution is a "radical" concept.

This flawed legislation is a direct result of the progressives not being able to get what they really wanted, which is a single payer system. Just like every progressive nudge towards socialism, they can't get it done out in the open, so they have to lie, cheat and hide their true intentions to gain ground.

Just a quick response to Uncle Buck... yes Social Security should be dismantled and privatized. Just about everything that came from FDR was unconstitutional, and it is those very policies and subsequent ones that account for 90% of the $105+ trillion in unfunded liabilities we have hanging over our heads.

They are ALL ponzi schemes and they will all fail if not eradicated.

 

[BudMcLovin]

Their only activist judges when you don’t agree with them. Doesn’t matter which side you’re on, if you don’t agree it was some activist judge.

Just a quick response to Uncle
Buck... yes Social Security should be dismantled and privatized. Just about everything that came from FDR was unconstitutional, and it is those very policies and subsequent ones that account for 90% of the $105+ trillion in unfunded liabilities we have hanging over our heads.

They are ALL ponzi schemes and they will all fail if not eradicated.

 

[Dan Kone]

Typical...Putting words in my mouth that i did not say.

You are for sure a obama puppet..

What words did I put in your mouth? I just asked a question.

 

[UncleBuck]

yes Social Security should be dismantled and privatized.

good luck with that one.

same goes for you johnny.

i kind of enjoy the fact that about 80% of old people are not living in poverty anymore.

i don't like the thought of grandma eating cat food.

perhaps you or johnny can tell me why social security is unconstitutional instead of just asserting it.

 

[Dan Kone]

perhaps you or johnny can tell me why social security is unconstitutional instead of just asserting it.

Never mind that it has already been ruled constitutional, Sarah Palin thinks it's marxism! Therefor it's unconstitutional.

 

[UncleBuck]

Never mind that it has already been ruled constitutional, Sarah Palin thinks it's marxism! Therefor it's unconstitutional.

what was the case(s)? i want to read about it.

fuck it, i'll just google it.

 

[Dan Kone]

what was the case(s)? i want to read about it.

fuck it, i'll just google it.

several rulings were made in 1937 investigating the constitutionality of different aspects of it.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html