Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Weak to you, perhaps. But not everyone needs the government to change their nappy and powder their bottom. People can make their own decisions. It's the height of hubris to claim they can't, and that you're better qualified than they are to run their lives.It's really quite simple: You no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to have health insurance. If you don't purchase it, you get fined.Btw, like your rightwing brethren on here, you seem to be incapable of explaining just how we're giving away our freedoms with the legislation recently passed.
Get it now? If you want to give your freedom away, fine. More fool you. But don't think for a minute you have the authority to give mine away as well.
That's weak.
It's really quite simple: You no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to have health insurance. If you don't purchase it, you get fined.
Weak to you, perhaps. But not everyone needs the government to change their nappy and powder their bottom. People can make their own decisions. It's the height of hubris to claim they can't, and that you're better qualified than they are to run their lives.It's really quite simple: You no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to have health insurance. If you don't purchase it, you get fined.
Get it now? If you want to give your freedom away, fine. More fool you. But don't think for a minute you have the authority to give mine away as well.
That's weak.
In other worlds, who the fuck do you think you are?
Weak to you, perhaps. But not everyone needs the government to change their nappy and powder their bottom. People can make their own decisions. It's the height of hubris to claim they can't, and that you're better qualified than they are to run their lives.It's really quite simple: You no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to have health insurance. If you don't purchase it, you get fined.
Get it now? If you want to give your freedom away, fine. More fool you. But don't think for a minute you have the authority to give mine away as well.
That's weak.
In other worlds, who the fuck do you think you are?
Weak to you, perhaps. But not everyone needs the government to change their nappy and powder their bottom. People can make their own decisions. It's the height of hubris to claim they can't, and that you're better qualified than they are to run their lives
No, that's not acceptable to me, because the government has no business in health care to begin with.It's really quite simple: You no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to have health insurance. If you don't purchase it, you get fined.
A few months back the following suggestion was offered:
But Congress could address this problem more directly. The law could give people a right to opt out of the mandate if they signed a form agreeing that they could not opt in for the following five years. In other words, instead of paying a fine, they would forgo a potential benefit. For five years they would become ineligible for federal subsidies for health insurance and, if they did buy coverage, no insurer would have to cover a pre-existing condition of theirs.
The idea for this opt-out comes from an analogous provision in Germany, which has a small sector of private insurance in addition to a much larger state insurance system. Only some Germans are eligible to opt for private insurance, but if they make that choice, the law prevents them from getting back at will into the public system. That deters opportunistic switches in and out of the public funds, and it helps to prevent the private insurers from cherry-picking healthy people and driving up insurance costs in the public sector.
This avoids the problem the mandate is designed to address: people being able to game the insurance system by opting out until they need insurance, at which point they enter an insurance pool but face no discrimination for the pre-existing condition they've developed. Would such a model be acceptable to you? You get your choice back but don't have the option of passing your costs onto the rest of us in the process.
Ahhh, but that does infringe on my rights. I have to purchase something I may not want to...or face a penalty from the government. I would call that "unreasonable search and seizure".Weak to you, perhaps. But not everyone needs the government to change their nappy and powder their bottom. People can make their own decisions. It's the height of hubris to claim they can't, and that you're better qualified than they are to run their lives.That's weak.
In other worlds, who the fuck do you think you are?
The majority acting within in the framework of a Constitutional Republic, the laws of which in this matter do not infringe on your inalienable rights. In other words, daveman, you are not an island alone.
No, that's not acceptable to me, because the government has no business in health care to begin with.
Thanks for fucking up my country.I think I'm a citizen who wants to see a certain policy go a certain way because I think it's in the country's long-term interest and I voted for people to implement.
It's not at all surprising that the Constitution means so little to you.And as far as your other answer goes, again I say it's weak and it's not the first time I've read it on here. You guys can't seem to come up with anything better. Many years ago laws were passed to mandate drivers buying auto insurance because it was deemed in the public's best interest for every driver to be insured. Despite that added mandatory cost to drive, we didn't become some Soviet-style gulag state. Nor have other countries that have adopted health systems more public than what just passed.
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."A lot of opponents to the bill - like this guy Marc Rubio in Florida - say they support the provision to end pre-existing conditions, but still are against the mandatory part, which is just plain stupid. The economics of having a reg against pre-existing conditions doesn't work unless you have a large pool to work from and you need to make the insurance mandatory for that to happen.
We'll see, won't we? I expect the law will be found unconstitutional...the Republican majority coming up won't even have to try to repeal it.And as for this part...
...you can characterise it how you want, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Got a feeling your view is gonna be the minority, if it isn't already.
We'll see, won't we? I expect the law will be found unconstitutional...the Republican majority coming up won't even have to try to repeal it.
As for the majority, obviously you haven't seen the polls lately. More Americans want this POS law repealed than want to keep it. Are you ready to accede to their wishes?
You're right. Unfortunately, the government has grown far past what it was intended to be.No, that's not acceptable to me, because the government has no business in health care to begin with.
I assume you mean the federal government. Which presumably means they should tax health insurance benefits as income, end tax-privileged HSAs, end financial assistance to states to cover children and the poor, repeal EMTALA so that no facility is obligated to give emergency treatment without first checking ability to pay (I suppose they can try and resuscitate you long enough to get your credit card information, although I suppose you'll need a family member present to attest to your income and assets level), etc.
It's entirely possible. The law also gives sweeping powers to the IRS.We'll see, won't we? I expect the law will be found unconstitutional...the Republican majority coming up won't even have to try to repeal it.
I was under the impression you think the individual mandate is unconstitutional. You actually think every piece of the law is unconstitutional and that the entire thing will be struck down instead of just that provision?
As for the majority, obviously you haven't seen the polls lately. More Americans want this POS law repealed than want to keep it. Are you ready to accede to their wishes?
That's debatable. There's been some evidence lately that the public is starting to accept the legislation.
AP-GfK poll: Public thumbs up for Obama health law - Yahoo! News
Verdict on Healthcare Reform Bill Still Divided
It's entirely possible. The law also gives sweeping powers to the IRS.We'll see, won't we? I expect the law will be found unconstitutional...the Republican majority coming up won't even have to try to repeal it.
I was under the impression you think the individual mandate is unconstitutional. You actually think every piece of the law is unconstitutional and that the entire thing will be struck down instead of just that provision?
That's always a bad thing.
I think that would be a good platform since most Americans think the healthcare bill was the wrong thing to do anyway, oh yeah, and nothing but another big dimwit lie!!!This is too funny...
You actually think they have the votes to repeal the Healthcare Bill?
You guys tried that one before and got your heads handed to you. Better question.....are Republicans willing to run in 2010 on repealing healthcare?
Better think about that one
Thanks for fucking up my country.I think I'm a citizen who wants to see a certain policy go a certain way because I think it's in the country's long-term interest and I voted for people to implement.
It's not at all surprising that the Constitution means so little to you.And as far as your other answer goes, again I say it's weak and it's not the first time I've read it on here. You guys can't seem to come up with anything better. Many years ago laws were passed to mandate drivers buying auto insurance because it was deemed in the public's best interest for every driver to be insured. Despite that added mandatory cost to drive, we didn't become some Soviet-style gulag state. Nor have other countries that have adopted health systems more public than what just passed.
A lot of opponents to the bill - like this guy Marc Rubio in Florida - say they support the provision to end pre-existing conditions, but still are against the mandatory part, which is just plain stupid. The economics of having a reg against pre-existing conditions doesn't work unless you have a large pool to work from and you need to make the insurance mandatory for that to happen.
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
You want that, move to any of the socialist shitholes. You know why they're shitholes? because they're socialist.
Meanwhile, quit being generous with other people's money and freedom.
We'll see, won't we? I expect the law will be found unconstitutional...the Republican majority coming up won't even have to try to repeal it.And as for this part...
...you can characterise it how you want, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Got a feeling your view is gonna be the minority, if it isn't already.
You sense wrong. But then, given your views, that's understandable.It's entirely possible. The law also gives sweeping powers to the IRS.I was under the impression you think the individual mandate is unconstitutional. You actually think every piece of the law is unconstitutional and that the entire thing will be struck down instead of just that provision?
That's always a bad thing.
I'm sensing an inability here to distinguish between "undesirable policy outcome" and "unconstitutional."
Sincerely -- thank you for your service.Sorry, it's mine, too. I even served in the Armed Forces for it.
No, it prohibits this kind of legislation because it doesn't allow it.It means plenty. It also doesn't prohibit this kind of legislation just because guys like you don't like it.
I expect you're used to it.Blah, blah, blah...call me comrade while you're at it. I really don't give a shit.
That illustrates the difference between us: You want to be a subject of the government. I think the government is supposed to work for us.Last I looked the US government is run by people who are more in line with my views, at least at the moment.
As I said elsewhere, it's funny watching people who loathed government under the GOP display this slavish adoration for it now.IOW, why don't you find some shithole of your own to go to. I'm gonna stay right here, thank you.
We will indeed. Will you be worshiping government this way when your team is no longer in charge?Kinda doubt that, but as you said, we'll see.
No, it prohibits this kind of legislation because it doesn't allow it.
As I said elsewhere, it's funny watching people who loathed government under the GOP display this slavish adoration for it now.
2. Even if we had been at war, that still doesn't invalidate the legal argument.
I'm not sure why, but daveman seems to be arguing for a circumstantial interpretation of the Constitution--if conditions justify X, then we can let it slide. Which is a bit odd because I'm not sure how that squares with "If you can find justification to support your agenda in there, somewhere, no matter how convoluted or outright fabricated, there's simply no way to argue against that."
