What If ObamaCare is Found Constitutional

[londonfog]

Too dumb to be doctors......not for long though.

so teachers are to dumb to be doctors ???? That has got to rank up top as one the dumbest statements you have made yet. Who taught the doctor ????

 

[londonfog]

Fix em? Who's been turned down to see a doctor? What right are you talking about? The right for me to subsidize their healthcare?

you poor you won't have to pay for you let along anyone else.

 

[canndo]

Lol what's next from the right wing forumites?

A. Crickets from all the silence
B. Heads exploding all over their Fox tuned TV's
C. Mass screaming about "activist judges"

Crickets? oh no, within mere minutes they had their talking point - it's a TAX, their dirty three letter word was all over FOX in the time it took them to be disgusted with their turncoat traitor Roberts. They feel betrayed by Roberts now, they all imagined that he would vote his ideology like any conservative judge is supposed to. But no, he actually tried to find a way to make this assinine law conservative and he did manage to do it. But now, they are pinning this, this.... TAX on Obama, biggest tax in American history they are claiming.

 

[canndo]

Ok We know its a done deal now (unless repealed) So does anyone have real solid information on what this will cost? From the poor to the wealthy? I am curious, seeing I am now paying a new "tax" I would like to know what its going to start out at and how far and fast its going to go. Will my insurance increase? From what I have read, yes but nothing solid. I looks like this will cost 160billion a year where is the money coming from?

You know? a lot of us asked where the money was going to come from for the two wars we are in. The answer was "who cares, we can't place a premium on our safety". That answer will suffice to your question as well.

 

[kelly4]

so teachers are to dumb to be doctors ???? That has got to rank up top as one the dumbest statements you have made yet. Who taught the doctor ????

Yeah, my 7th grade history teacher was a real brain.

Who taught the doctor? That would be a professor.

 

[canndo]

I have to disagree. The quality of doctors will keep going down. They will not make as much, yet school costs will keep going up. People who are intelligent enough, yet want to make lots of money will choose other careers. Most doctors are not in it for the "love of people". They are in it for the love of science........and money. When the money goes away, so do the doctors who are smart enough to make lots of money doing something else.

2nd rate doctors, that's part of what's wrong.

But... but.... we have the best health care system in the WORLD.

 

[InCognition]

Egoist philosophy seeks to logically defeat morality.

This is where your personal sense of morality has clouded your ability to think rationally. There is nothing philosophical or egotistical about the point I make in exposing your hypocrisy.

It boggles my mind as to the fact that you some how think it's moral to take from one man or many men forcibly, in order to provide to others. When you give a man the option to help, that's rational logic. When you force a man to help another man in any way, shape, or form, that's not rational logic, nor is it moral... it's simply a failed attempt at justifying an initial form immorality with a later form of morality. It's a contradiction, thus it's a fallacy to have that train of thought.

Essentially, by your rationale, it's ok to use the government as a 3rd party, to forcibly take from those who have, in order to give to those who do not. There is absolutely nothing moral or ethical regarding that train of thought, as you had to breach the very same code of morality to achieve the later "moral" goal.

Saving or preserving human life and health is not moral, when you have to justify it by forcibly taking from others. There is no logical way to argue against or defeat that fact. Again, that is not egoist philosophy, it's simply fact.

All the garbage you posted about more jobs, more salaries, more profits, more lives saved, more this, more that. It means nothing when you have to practice a flawed code of ethics, and deny rational logic to achieve those goals. Good things don't come out of thin air, which is what you seem to believe. All those profits, jobs, salaries, lives saved, and health enhancements come at a cost from somewhere, and that "somewhere" is another human being.

 

[kelly4]

you poor you won't have to pay for you let along anyone else.

I don't have to pay for me or anyone else?
Who's paying for me?

 

[londonfog]

Yeah, my 7th grade history teacher was a real brain.

Who taught the doctor? That would be a professor.

and a professor is a ...... come on you can do it

[h=3]pro·fes·sor/prəˈfesər/[/h]

Noun:

A teacher of the highest rank in a college or university.

 

[Moses Mobetta]

It boggles my mind as to the fact that you some how think it's moral to take from one man or many men forcibly, in order to provide to others. When you give a man the option to help, that's rational logic. When you force a man to help another man in any way, shape, or form, that's not rational logic, nor is it moral... it's simply a failed attempt at justifying an initial form immorality with a later form of morality. It's a contradiction, thus it's a fallacy to have that train of thought.

Essentially, by your rationale, it's ok to use the government as a 3rd party, to forcibly take from those who have, in order to give to those who do not. There is absolutely nothing moral or ethical regarding that train of thought, as you had to breach the very same code of morality to achieve the later "moral" goal.

Saving or preserving human life and health is not moral, when you have to justify it by forcibly taking from others. There is no logical way to argue against or defeat that fact. Again, that is not egoist philosophy, it's simply fact.

Well put . But in serious question - do you believe the strong have a duty to protect the weak , or the not so strong ?

 

[abandonconflict]

This is where your personal sense of morality has clouded your ability to think rationally. There is nothing philosophical or egotistical about the point I make in exposing your hypocrisy.

It boggles my mind as to the fact that you some how think it's moral to take from one man or many men forcibly, in order to provide to others. When you give a man the option to help, that's rational logic. When you force a man to help another man in any way, shape, or form, that's not rational logic, nor is it moral... it's simply a failed attempt at justifying an initial form immorality with a later form of morality. It's a contradiction, thus it's a fallacy to have that train of thought.

Essentially, by your rationale, it's ok to use the government as a 3rd party, to forcibly take from those who have, in order to give to those who do not. There is absolutely nothing moral or ethical regarding that train of thought, as you had to breach the very same code of morality to achieve the later "moral" goal.

Saving or preserving human life and health is not moral, when you have to justify it by forcibly taking from others. There is no logical way to argue against or defeat that fact. Again, that is not egoist philosophy, it's simply fact.

All the garbage you posted about more jobs, more salaries, more profits, more lives saved, more this, more that. It means nothing when you have to practice a flawed code of ethics, and deny rational logic to achieve those goals. Good things don't come out of thin air, which is what you seem to believe. All those profits, jobs, salaries, lives saved, and health enhancements come at a cost from somewhere, and that "somewhere" is another human being.

It is not within your parameters of morality to save or preserve human life, that does not mean that it is not moral. It is absolutely moral and evolutionarily biological. If your right brain has atrophied so much that you believe morality is best used by ignoring it, then quite simply, you are only using half of your brain. You have admitted yourself that morality is something preexisting, which you believe you must abandon. You must not abandon it, this is not transcendental. Selfishness doesn't come naturally to everyone.

 

[kelly4]

and a professor is a ...... come on you can do it

pro·fes·sor/prəˈfesər/

Noun:

A teacher of the highest rank in a college or university.

Yeah, and a mayor and the POTUS are the same thing, civil servants......is that what your telling me?

 

[desert dude]

It is not within your parameters of morality to save or preserve human life, that does not mean that it is not moral. It is absolutely moral and evolutionarily biological. If your right brain has atrophied so much that you believe morality is best used by ignoring it, then quite simply, you are only using half of your brain. You have admitted yourself that morality is something preexisting, which you believe you must abandon. You must not abandon it, this is not transcendental. Selfishness doesn't come naturally to everyone.

He is saying it is not moral for me to pick your pocket to support my charitable contributions. That is not charity. It's really pretty simple.

 

[kelly4]

It is not within your parameters of morality to save or preserve human life, that does not mean that it is not moral. It is absolutely moral and evolutionarily biological. If your right brain has atrophied so much that you believe morality is best used by ignoring it, then quite simply, you are only using half of your brain. You have admitted yourself that morality is something preexisting, which you believe you must abandon. You must not abandon it, this is not transcendental. Selfishness doesn't come naturally to everyone.

What about those of us who already give a great deal to charities? None of my charities even have to do with the church, so you can forget about that angle.
I don't mind giving freely, as a matter of fact I like to, if it's my own choice. Anytime I'm told I must give to charity, I will fight it.

 

[BA142]

What about those of us who already give a great deal to charities? None of my charities even have to do with the church, so you can forget about that angle.
I don't mind giving freely, as a matter of fact I like to, if it's my own choice. Anytime I'm told I must give to charity, I will fight it.

Did you fight it when George W started 2 wars? That takes taxpayer money too....and a lot more money at that.

 

[kelly4]

Did you fight it when George W started 2 wars? That takes taxpayer money too....and a lot more money at that.

Do you think wars make me happy? Do you think I like my tax money going to fund a war? Grow the fuck up.

 

[UncleBuck]

He is saying it is not moral for me to pick your pocket to support my charitable contributions. That is not charity. It's really pretty simple.

you and incognition are equating taxation to theft. when was the last time you consented to theft?

every time you sign a W2, you consent. by continuing to live in this nation and abide by its constitution, you consent.

you are perfectly free to abscond to the woods or move to another country and renounce your citizenship, but you don't. you continue to consent to taxation by not exercising your option to escape it.

if someone were literally picking your pocket, would you just sit there and let it happen, or would you act so as to stop the pickpocketing?

the argument that taxation is theft, especially when a certain percentage of that taxation goes right back to you in the form of other benefits, is pure fallacy.

 

[InCognition]

It boggles my mind as to the fact that you some how think it's moral to take from one man or many men forcibly, in order to provide to others. When you give a man the option to help, that's rational logic. When you force a man to help another man in any way, shape, or form, that's not rational logic, nor is it moral... it's simply a failed attempt at justifying an initial form immorality with a later form of morality. It's a contradiction, thus it's a fallacy to have that train of thought.

Essentially, by your rationale, it's ok to use the government as a 3rd party, to forcibly take from those who have, in order to give to those who do not. There is absolutely nothing moral or ethical regarding that train of thought, as you had to breach the very same code of morality to achieve the later "moral" goal.

Saving or preserving human life and health is not moral, when you have to justify it by forcibly taking from others. There is no logical way to argue against or defeat that fact. Again, that is not egoist philosophy, it's simply fact.

Well put . But in serious question - do you believe the strong have a duty to protect the weak , or the not so strong ?

Nobody has any duty to protect anyone. Period. You have the choice to do so, not the forced duty in being made to do so.

If you do believe that the strong have a duty in protecting the weak, would you be so kind as to tell me what human being has the justifiable power, in forcing such duty upon those who are "strong"?

I would love for someone to logically explain to me that it's ethical in forcing the strong to help the weak, against the strong's own will. We call that coercion... coercion is unethical, and if that does not agree with one's fundamental set of ethics, their ethics are a flawed set of hypocrisy, lies, and delusion.

 

[InCognition]

you and incognition are equating taxation to theft. when was the last time you consented to theft?

every time you sign a W2, you consent. by continuing to live in this nation and abide by its constitution, you consent.

you are perfectly free to abscond to the woods or move to another country and renounce your citizenship, but you don't. you continue to consent to taxation by not exercising your option to escape it.

if someone were literally picking your pocket, would you just sit there and let it happen, or would you act so as to stop the pickpocketing?

the argument that taxation is theft, especially when a certain percentage of that taxation goes right back to you in the form of other benefits, is pure fallacy.

Even when the party you claim "receives other forms of benefits" declines to receive those benefits or does not want to participate in the system that may potentially provide such benefits?

Consenting to do so "or else", is more so coercion than it is consenting. Consenting to coercion is really what it is.

Sure we can use our freedom to move to another country. But let's face it, even though America is fucked up beyond belief, it's still a great country to live in currently. Most other countries around the globe are just as fucked up as the US is regarding their laws, political ethics, and monetary practices.

I'll leave it to myself regarding my free practice as a human being, of tax manipulation for what I feel I don't owe. The government makes me pay into SS, but I don't want to receive SS, as I would rather keep the money I put into it. Knowing full well that I won't receive SS, is another story. Tax manipulation is a calculated risk, and in this free country you have the freedom to take those risks as a human being, or get locked up in a cage. Until then I'll keep practicing what I have the right in doing, while also practicing my right to accept the risk in doing so.

If the government wants to make me sign on the dotted line, "or else", I would much rather continue to sign on my own terms after falsely agree to theirs, while facing the same repercussion. Selfish I know, but the government is a selfish, malignant cancer, so I'm going to fight that cancer with more cancer. They don't give a fuck about this country's future, why should I give a fuck about theirs? I know, I know... I'm crazy right? Well, hear me rawr! LOL.

 

[canndo]

It boggles my mind as to the fact that you some how think it's moral to take from one man or many men forcibly, in order to provide to others. When you give a man the option to help, that's rational logic. When you force a man to help another man in any way, shape, or form, that's not rational logic, nor is it moral... it's simply a failed attempt at justifying an initial form immorality with a later form of morality. It's a contradiction, thus it's a fallacy to have that train of thought.

Essentially, by your rationale, it's ok to use the government as a 3rd party, to forcibly take from those who have, in order to give to those who do not. There is absolutely nothing moral or ethical regarding that train of thought, as you had to breach the very same code of morality to achieve the later "moral" goal.

Saving or preserving human life and health is not moral, when you have to justify it by forcibly taking from others. There is no logical way to argue against or defeat that fact. Again, that is not egoist philosophy, it's simply fact.

All the garbage you posted about more jobs, more salaries, more profits, more lives saved, more this, more that. It means nothing when you have to practice a flawed code of ethics, and deny rational logic to achieve those goals. Good things don't come out of thin air, which is what you seem to believe. All those profits, jobs, salaries, lives saved, and health enhancements come at a cost from somewhere, and that "somewhere" is another human being.

This is an utterly specious argument. This is not about morals but about order. If a group of us use a road, you and I and others but you refuse to pay for that road along with the rest of us, it is not irrational or unfounded for me to force you to help pay for that road. If a group of us find all of the order provided to us by the government - that government of, by and for the people, to be of great advantage but you refuse to pay your share of the cost of that order then we are within our rights to demand that money from you. Your mistake is in thinking that we provide for others solely for those other's sake. This is not so we provide for others so that order is maintained and our society is predictable and reasonable, if this benefits some folks more than you would like then so be it but it is not as violently immoral as you claim.