Obamacare

Post Reply New Topic

The Supreme Court has changed its mind many times and has been wrong many times. Are you arguing that today's Court is perfect and infallible?



It doesn't work that way -- as if the government could do whatever it pleased except those actions specifically prohibited. The Constitution grants the government certain enumerated powers and only those powers. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Amendment X). If you think the federal government should have the authority to regulate this or take over that -- I don't have time to discuss issue-by-issue -- but can't find that power assigned in the Constitution, there's one thing to do: Amend the Constitution.

Every power the government assumes without proper Constitutional authority, however well-intentioned, moves us farther away from the rule of law and closer to the arbitrary rule of men.

I take it that you didn't read the Supreme Court decision, and that you are unfamiliar with the constitutional arguments presented?

I am not. I am saying that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution through the lens of the current cultural environment, for better or for worse. I am saying that when the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it becomes law. You have clearly stated that you are a firm believer in the rule of law.



"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Amendment X).

This is how the federal government derives its power to regulate. The people elect their lawmakers, who pass legislation. This is why the Supreme Court holds up many laws that aren't specifically stated by the Constitution.



I see little difference between the the rule of law and the rule of men. The rule of law is entirely based on and enforced by the rule of men.

There are many Supreme Court decisions that I disagree with in part or in whole. But they are the law, and you can't pick and choose which ones you are going to follow based on personal preference.

You take it wrong.

According to the Court, the government may now dictate individual action via its power to tax. The possible ramifications of this boggle the mind. Future administrations may compel every citizen to buy a Bible, or an American car, or a hundred pounds of peanuts -- to help the peanut growers, you know -- or else pay a hefty "tax." Except for time, practicality, and the ever-shrinking Bill of Rights, what now stands between us and a state in which every action is either mandatory or forbidden?

You do realize that the government already requires quite a few taxes, don't you? You do realize that there are already stacks of regulations that have madatory and/or forbidden actions, don't you? What exactly is it about the ACA that you feel is so drastically different? It seems that the requirement to have health insurance is your major issue, but what about the money required of you by the Social Security system; is that just as unconstitutional? Or are you just opposed to the federal government having any power at all?

Really?

Start reading up on the people who NOW either have to pay outrageous amounts to be UNDER INSURED or pay a TAX to still have NO INSURANCE.

This is an improvement in your eyes?

Do you have anything to back this up other than anecdotal evidence?

Yes, there are some people who are going to pay more, but as I have stated several times in this thread, it is largely dependent on how badly your state government is trying to circumvent the ACA. Many red states have been putting so much effort into hampering the law's implementation that it does nothing but drive up costs for those who can afford them least. The reason so many of these states have poor options on the exchanges is because many major insurance companies refuse to be listed on them because it would not be profitable to do so in states that openly hostile toward the Act. My guess is that the Repubs are either desperate to do some political grandstanding or else they are trying to show their poor and less informed voters how bad the law is going to be for them in order to gain political support.

In the states that accepted the Medicaid expansion and took an active role in designing and improving their exchanges, you will see very few people who are worse off.

So, mob rule then? Whatever the majority wants is good. Why bother having a Constitution?




You really need to talk to some people who have lived under dictatorship.



I am not advocating that anybody violate the laws on the books. Both citizens and their representatives, however, can and should oppose laws they believe to be unjust.

As somebody else suggested, it's going to be entertaining to see many people change their tune when someday it's a Democratic Congress opposing a Republican initiative.

There are stacks and stacks and stacks of regulations -- some I think are justified, some not. As a rule they regulate activity: if you want to do X (drive a car on the street, operate a restaurant, hire employees), you must also do Y. Can you name another circumstance in which the government regulates inactivity, saying that you must perform a certain action merely because you are alive? All I can think of is the military draft (which I also think is wrong).

I would like for the government to have exactly as much power as it needs to carry out its proper function: protecting individual rights.

The government regulates loads of inactivity. Perhaps you should look up a few more things. Especially when it comes to taxes (which is what you seem to have such a problem with: the tax on refusing health insurance). If you are a US citizen and have a social security number, there are plenty of requirements. If you receive any money from any source you are required to file a tax return (no exceptions). That includes all forms of government assistance, winning $1 from a scratch off lotto ticket, getting paid $10 to mow someone's lawn or tutor their kid, etc. Technically speaking, you are also required to file a return for anything that could be tax deductible, regardless of any (or no) income, including things like medical expenses, charitable donations, and education expenses. I would say that this covers almost everyone in this country. Before you say there are a few people that this does not cover, keep in mind that there are exemptions from the individual madate as well.

So an individual does not have the right to live a healthy life?

Just for the record, I disagree with many regulations. You have the right to do the same. My issue with your arguments is that you present your personal beliefs as the only acceptable ones. Yes you can (and should) voice your concerns to your lawmakers. That is a large component in effecting change. You cannot, however, justifiably call something illegal and unconstitutional that has been passed by your legislators and upheld by the Supreme Court.

That's just breaking the system. Every time that has been tried from ancient Rome to 1860's America to modern day Africa and the Middle East it has led to violence and civil war.

If you don't have enough votes to repeal the bill, you should respect the system and let it go until you have the votes to repeal.

What the Tea Party is doing is wrong and ultimately very, very dangerous.

Republicans often ignore the fact Jesus was a compassionate man.

It probably wasn't your intention, but you're making a strong argument against the Sixteenth Amendment ....

The legal world loves a precedent, but I have never been convinced by the argument which runs "The government already does A, B, C, and D, therefore it must be allowed to do E.". That is the embodiment of "slippery slope." Perhaps A is justified, B is iffy, and C and D are gross violations of rights, but there's little point in arguing about them now. If you'd known me for decades and you knew I always praised ABCD, you could accuse me of hypocrisy, but that's not the case.



There can be no right to goods or services which other people are obligated to provide -- that turns the whole concept of rights on its head. There is no "right to enslave." If I choose to buy crayons for my kids rather than shoes for you, a complete stranger, I am not denying you your "right to shoes." Buy your own shoes, or find someone who will willingly buy them for you; I am not responsible for your shoes, nor for your splenectomy. I have enough on my plate. I do donate to charity and would like a little more say in where my money goes. (I would not choose to donate to the welfare queens I see every week in the grocery, nor to Solyndra, nor to General Motors, nor to dozens of assorted countries around the world which mostly curse us for it.)



I think I am right. You think you are right. A moderator may correct me, but I believe people normally come to PPR to express opinions. I am not going to preface every statement with "In my humble opinion," but you can imagine it is there if you like.



Of course I can. The Constitution is not some arcane text which only anointed High Priests may interpret. It belongs to everybody, and considering that it was drafted by a committee of lawyers, it is written in remarkably clear language. I have as much right to read it, and judge politicians' claims against it, as you or John Roberts or anybody else. It may not be a perfect document, but it really doesn't contain a lot of "slop." When the government claims powers not properly granted to it, it acts in an unconstitutional and illegal (or perhaps extralegal) manner. I can only call 'em like I see 'em.

The point wasn't what the laws do; Dox was challenging me on how I would feel if the shoe was on the other foot, and my minority party were hypothetically trying to block a law that I strongly disliked. If I were passionate about, say, ferrets, it could have been a bill making ferrets illegal (or, for that matter, mandating a ferret in every household: end the lack of ferrets!).

It's called "democracy."
Elections have consequences.

How far should they go, though? It's one thing to write an editorial; it's another altogether to blow up a federal building or shut the government down.

wrt. constitutionality: of course you can have your opinion and 'call it like you see it,' but you can't expect most of us non-legal experts to take your opinion more seriously than that of the SCOTUS.

the "industry" values profit over healing, so I say screw them.