national health care...how awesome!

BudMcLovin said:

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.

Click to expand...

No it's an activist judge ruling because it goes against previous supreme court rulings. He's trying to change the predetermined meaning of the constitution from his bench. That's why he can be considered an activist judge.

Under this judge's interpretation much of what congress has done in the last 100 years would be considered unconstitutional. He's highlighting the commerce clause while ignoring the elastic clause.

Dan Kone said:

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

Click to expand...

I said plenty. You obviously have no rebuttal beyond a blithe dismissal.

By your logic the parts of my post you did NOT cherry-pick are not partisan and say a whole lot.

Dan Kone said:

And that's a huge problem why?

Click to expand...

I explained this already and backed it up with a source.

Without a severance clause, if any part of the 2,000 page bill which became the law is found unconstitutional, the entire bill is tainted. Which means any constitutional flaw at all dooms MessiahCare.

Dan Kone said:

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.

Click to expand...

Following the rule of law identifies a judge as activist in your opinion?

Just damn.

doc111 said:

...They have become a lot like the government. Bloated, inefficent and corrupt.

Click to expand...

Most people would guess I'm a democrat but I can't stand unions. To me they are basically cut from the same cloth as lawyers, but with less education... I even work for local government, and I'm NOT in a union. If I don't do my job, my ass gets shit canned. If I do an exceptional job, I get a thumbs up from leadership (but no bonus) and the general population still thinks I'm an asshole, lazy, good for nothing idiot. Yeay me.

"The government" is actually all of us who participate in the organization of our nation/state/county/city etc (via employment, vote, or voluntary activism). It just bugs me when people talk about "the government" as if its some bunch of OTHER people that make decisions without any input... on the contrary, the political process is DYING for people to participate. Get involved, good people! Peace my brothas and sistas.

[video=youtube;ZTVOrfwgMi4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTVOrfwgMi4[/video]

Johnnyorganic said:

I said plenty. You obviously have no rebuttal beyond a blithe dismissal.

By your logic the parts of my post you did NOT cherry-pick are not partisan and say a whole lot.


I explained this already and backed it up with a source.

Without a severance clause, if any part of the 2,000 page bill which became the law is found unconstitutional, the entire bill is tainted. Which means any constitutional flaw at all dooms MessiahCare.


Following the rule of law identifies a judge as activist in your opinion?

Just damn.

Click to expand...

Aside from your talking points, you still aren't saying much.

If this part of the health care bill is ruled unconstitutional the whole thing needs to be thrown out. You can't tell people health insurance is optional but insurance companies are forced to cover pre-existing conditions. Why would anyone buy health insurance when they are healthy? They'd just wait till they got sick and then buy it. That would immediately bankrupt every health insurance company and then health insurance wouldn't exist.

UncleBuck said:

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.

Click to expand...

Show me where the Constitution grants the Federal government the authority to run a mandatory pension program.

Social security is the responsibility of the states, or the people.

See the Tenth Amendment.

Johnnyorganic said:

Show me where the Constitution grants the Federal government the authority to run a mandatory pension program.

Social security is the responsibility of the states, or the people.

See the Tenth Amendment.

Click to expand...

It's so cute how conservatives read one line in the constitution and think that's the entire story. Sometimes a little bit of information is worse than no information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause

hi!

Dan Kone said:

Aside from your talking points, you still aren't saying much.

If this part of the health care bill is ruled unconstitutional the whole thing needs to be thrown out. You can't tell people health insurance is optional but insurance companies are forced to cover pre-existing conditions. Why would anyone buy health insurance when they are healthy? They'd just wait till they got sick and then buy it. That would immediately bankrupt every health insurance company and then health insurance wouldn't exist.

Click to expand...

"Talking points."

Charming.

I would ask you to back that statement up, but we both know you cannot.

At least we agree on one thing: The whole thing needs to be thrown out.

Dan Kone said:

It's so cute how conservatives read one line in the constitution and think that's the entire story. Sometimes a little bit of information is worse than no information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause

hi!

Click to expand...

Kindly explain what is 'necessary and proper' about a Ponzi scheme.

Johnnyorganic said:

Show me where the Constitution grants the Federal government the authority to run a mandatory pension program.

Social security is the responsibility of the states, or the people.

See the Tenth Amendment.

Click to expand...

oh, shit. now we stepped in it.

johnny is FEISTY tonight.

i'll get reading and see why the SCOTUS found it constitutional first. then we can quibble like two good little partisans.

it's a date

Johnnyorganic said:

Ponzi scheme

Click to expand...

i've heard this phrase used so much recently by the right.

is 'ponzi scheme' the new 'ramming it down our throats'?

Granted, I have not been closely following either "side" to this unconstitutional debate lately, but by nullifying this compromised health reform bill isn't the GOP forcing the reintroduction of a single payor option? (The system is not sustainable as is...)

Johnnyorganic said:

Kindly explain what is 'necessary and proper' about a Ponzi scheme.

Click to expand...

Words mean things. You can't simply declare that something is a ponzi scheme and have that become true.

It's necessary to mandate health insurance in order to get insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so Americans stop having to declare bankruptcy or die because they can't get health insurance.

Even if they wasn't a life or death situation for many Americans, which it is, the elastic clause gives congress vague and broad powers to spend in numerous different ways. I know you don't like that, but that's the reality of the situation.

UncleBuck said:

i've heard this phrase used so much recently by the right.

is 'ponzi scheme' the new 'ramming it down our throats'?

Click to expand...

or the new 2000pages, etc, etc, etc

yeah, meaningless talking point

Dan Kone said:

or the new 2000pages, etc, etc, etc

yeah, meaningless talking point

Click to expand...

republican buzzwordism at its finest.

even at its finest it is pathetic.

Dan Kone said:

Words mean things. You can't simply declare that something is a ponzi scheme and have that become true.

It's necessary to mandate health insurance in order to get insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so Americans stop having to declare bankruptcy or die because they can't get health insurance.

Even if they wasn't a life or death situation for many Americans, which it is, the elastic clause gives congress vague and broad powers to spend in numerous different ways. I know you don't like that, but that's the reality of the situation.

Click to expand...

The CBO says that SS will be bankrupt by 2037.

If SS were run by a commerical investing house, the major players would be sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff by now.

Dan Kone said:

or the new 2000pages, etc, etc, etc

yeah, meaningless talking point

Click to expand...

Are you asserting the bill was not voluminous?

If something adds up to 999 and I round up to 1,000; am I using hyperbole?

Now it's time for you to prove I am going off talking points.

The burden of proof is on YOU.

Prove it.

I'll wait.

Johnnyorganic said:

The CBO says that SS will be bankrupt by 2037.

If SS were run by a commerical investing house, the major players would be sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff by now.

Click to expand...

You were referring to the health care bill. Moved on to a new talking point already?

Too bad. You almost had a coherent thought. Oh well, maybe next time.

UncleBuck said:

republican buzzwordism at its finest.

even at its finest it is pathetic.

Click to expand...

You just don't like it.

So you dismiss it.

Even if it is true.

Do it at your own peril all you want.

But when the stupidity of other people will affect me, I am compelled to speak out.

Johnnyorganic said:

The CBO says that SS will be bankrupt by 2037.

Click to expand...

i apologize in advance for the selective quotation.

but i need to make direct reference to that statement of yours and ask you something...well, a few things.

weren't you just ranting the other day about how what the CBO says is for shit and devoid of meaning?

so why are you relying on them now?

and what do they call someone who argues against one thing, but also does that same thing?

btw, if we simply raised the cap above 106K, that would fix the whole thing. i also think we should raise the retirement age for full benefits, and pay out some fraction of benefits if you take SS at an earlier age. but really, raising the cap alone would be sufficient.

Dan Kone said:

You were referring to the health care bill. Moved on to a new talking point already?

Too bad. You almost had a coherent thought. Oh well, maybe next time.

Click to expand...

I was answering your point on SS.

And it appears I struck a nerve.

The Elastic Clause was upheld by an FDR-stacked court which has been pushing up daisies for decades.

FDR's court will not be hearing this case.

UncleBuck said:

i apologize in advance for the selective quotation.

but i need to make direct reference to that statement of yours and ask you something...well, a few things.

weren't you just ranting the other day about how what the CBO says is for shit and devoid of meaning?

so why are you relying on them now?

and what do they call someone who argues against one thing, but also does that same thing?

btw, if we simply raised the cap above 106K, that would fix the whole thing. i also think we should raise the retirement age for full benefits, and pay out some fraction of benefits if you take SS at an earlier age. but really, raising the cap alone would be sufficient.

Click to expand...

Yes, the CBO has it's limitations.

But Proggies use it as the gold standard lately.

I am trying to speak your language here, Buck.

So I used CBO numbers.

But the stark reality is far more ominous. I doubt sincerely that SS will make it to 2037 as things stand.