‘Government-Run’ Nonsense and other dubious right wing lies shot down

[Dragon]

I read that section. I also read where the court EXPLICITLY stated that the power to tax and spend is a separate and independent power and NOT limited by the OTHER enumerated powers. Which is what relates to the current discussion.

right honeybun

and that was a finding of lower court (see the page number of that decision ?)

of which the appelate court

held......

it is limited to the scope within the Constitution

All of the language that I presented was the language of the Supreme Court's decision. It may have referenced a decision by a lower court, but the language presented is what the court held, or the basis for it holding as it did.

That the power to tax and spend is "limited to the scope within the Constitution" is not in dispute. The question is whether it is a power in itself, or one subordinate to the other enumerated powers, so that Congress may tax and spend but only so as to enable itself to coin money, punish piracy, create an army and navy, etc. The Court affirmed in no uncertain terms that the power to tax (and hence spend) is a separate power all on its own, and not restricted to enabling of the other enumerated powers.

You may disagree with the Court's ruling, but it is either disingenuous or an example of poor reading comprehension to pretend that it does not say what it clearly does.

 

[dblack]

That the power to tax and spend is "limited to the scope within the Constitution" is not in dispute. The question is whether it is a power in itself, or one subordinate to the other enumerated powers, so that Congress may tax and spend but only so as to enable itself to coin money, punish piracy, create an army and navy, etc. The Court affirmed in no uncertain terms that the power to tax (and hence spend) is a separate power all on its own, and not restricted to enabling of the other enumerated powers.

You may disagree with the Court's ruling, but it is either disingenuous or an example of poor reading comprehension to pretend that it does not say what it clearly does.

It's the ruling itself that is either disingenuous or an example of poor reading comprehension. In either case, it guts the concept of limited government, turning the idea on its head. It uses the taxation power as a lever to justify a broad implied power so pervasive that it renders the enumeration of thie other powers irrelevant and makes the authors look beyond silly for even bothering.

 

[OODA_Loop]

All of the language that I presented was the language of the Supreme Court's decision. It may have referenced a decision by a lower court, but the language presented is what the court held, or the basis for it holding as it did.

You may disagree with the Court's ruling, but it is either disingenuous or an example of poor reading comprehension to pretend that it does not say what it clearly does.

You are waaaaaaaaay out of your lane son

SCOTUS is an appellate court

The lower court found what you assert

then SCOTUS HELD it is not

that is why the legislative tactic turned from General Welfare to the Commerce Clause (as I thought you referenced earlier)....the federal authority restricted to use the auspices of general welfare by SCOTUS used its regulation of interstate commerce as the mechanism to assert Federal authority of items not speficially delegated to it in the Constitution and has been the basis of law since

 

[daveman]

Voting Democrat is being bought.

For an astoundingly low price, it seems.

What price is Liberty?

More than some are willing to pay.

 

[daveman]

Name the part of the Constitution and section where universal healthcare is forbidden, otherwise stop repeating rightwing talking points.

You lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution. It specifically describes what the Federal government may do. If it doesn't grant the Feds a power, that power is then given to the States or the people.

The Constitution isn't a blank check for the government. Leftists consistently fail to understand that.

One again jackass...

Weren't you bitching about personal attacks earlier?

...explain how the law conflicts with the Constitution.

The Constitution does not give the Federal government the power to compel the purchase of a product. If you believe it does, point out the article.

Don't give me trolling right wing talking points and ad-hominems against leftists, that's childish. The fact remains that Obama's health care law is closely modeled after and even copied from a plan the GOPtards wanted, are the GOPtards leftists too?

It's been explained to you over and over. You're either too dumb to get it or too star-struck by the Obamessiah to see it. And since you bitterly cling to your ignorance, I don't believe I'll waste any more time trying to correct your dumbassery.

 

[daveman]

daveman has no real arguments against the single payer system so he makes untruthful claims that its unconstitutional and demeans government, and liberals as not knowing anything despite the fact that it was the Republitards that originally wanted the single payer system of universal healthcare. Its better to make personal attacks instead acknowledging that the single payer system drives down costs.

Where are you going to get the doctors you need, Bass? The left claims that millions of Americans don't have access to health care now. What happens to the already-overburdened system when they're suddenly tossed into it? Add to that a cap on reimbursement for treatment.

Who would want to go into medicine facing less pay and longer hours?

There are no personal attacks in this post. Please answer my questions.

There is no proof that universal healthcare makes people less likely to want to go into the medical field, these doctors charge sky high prices well above market value. I already explained that, doctors can charge whatever prices they want now, that's why the cost of health care in the US is more than any other country, even higher than in country that have universal healthcare. Enough with your hypothetical strawman argument.

The cap on reimbursement is to keep health insurance companies from passing on their losses and operating costs onto the consumers.

So all you have is wishful thinking.

Oh, and thanks for the obligatory leftist "I've decided they make too much money" class envy bullshit.

 

[daveman]

Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.

Unless it's repealed by clear-headed people, it will create more problems than it solves. Those who want socialized medicine will claim the only thing that can save us is government-run healthcare.

This has been the plan all along. It's been quite obvious.

Here's the thing, though.

Private Health insurance in the long run is unsustainable. Eventually, medical care becomes so expensive, no one can afford the insurance.

Government has already taken on the hard-cases. the elderly, the poor, the disabled- who need constant and expensive care.

So private insurance is left just caring for the people who are mostly healthy.

ObamaCare attempts to preserve the status quo by forcing people to pay into the system who could and weren't and adding additional government subsidies for those who can't, but it speeds up the demise of the system by essentially eliminating the ability of insurance companies to refuse payment for pre-existing conditions.

Essentially, allowing you to buy car insurance AFTER you've had the accident.

Indeed. Forcing the collapse is the plan. Then government will have to implement single-payer.

As I said, the goal all along.

 

[daveman]

Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.

Unless it's repealed by clear-headed people, it will create more problems than it solves. Those who want socialized medicine will claim the only thing that can save us is government-run healthcare.

This has been the plan all along. It's been quite obvious.

I agree with Health Care for all---just not mandated. If the gov forces everyone to buy Health Care where will it end. A huge slippery slope. Today Health care, tomorrow Firestone Tires.

However, I don't think the Sct. are clear headed people. They are the court that said Corporations are People? Look how that has gone over in the country. People are outraged.

What's the difference between corporations, groups of people organized for a common purpose, donating to political campaigns; and unions, groups of people organized for a common purpose, donating to political campaigns?

I can't think of one. The left breathlessly assures me there is one, but can't seem to articulate it.

Without the mandated portion of the bill---the entire bill fall apart. There is other way to pay for it unless healthy people pay for sick people's care. But when people get sick they should get care and not be allowed to die just cause they can't afford it.

As a country we should take care of the sick. It is the morally right thing to do. On the other hand, we shouldn't be forced to purchase a product we don't need or want.

You can't legislate morality.

 

[daveman]

Wait, your objection isn't that the government can't effectively offer health insurance, and that when they do it's a terrible Mad Max nightmare scenario--it's that when government does offer insurance, it's so good that most people aren't deserving of it?

Is English your second...or third...language, or have you had a brain injury?

 

[daveman]

Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.

Unless it's repealed by clear-headed people, it will create more problems than it solves. Those who want socialized medicine will claim the only thing that can save us is government-run healthcare.

This has been the plan all along. It's been quite obvious.

Socialized "medicine", what the fuck is wrong with you? When you were in the military and even now you have Tricare as a retiree, do you call that "socialized medicine?" You dumb fucking right wingers look like sick puppies parroting the bullshit of your pundits, "socialized medicine," what a dick head.

One moron applauding another. How amusing.

 

[Political Junky]

How about if I simply say, I don't want health insurance....period.

I don't want so called "Obamacare" or any other kind of "care" meaning insurance.

I won't have the option of not having it...will I ?

Ron Paul said he'd let you die.

 

[Listening]

How about if I simply say, I don't want health insurance....period.

I don't want so called "Obamacare" or any other kind of "care" meaning insurance.

I won't have the option of not having it...will I ?

Ron Paul said he'd let you die.

And I don't begrudge him that at all.

 

[Annie]

Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.

Unless it's repealed by clear-headed people, it will create more problems than it solves. Those who want socialized medicine will claim the only thing that can save us is government-run healthcare.

This has been the plan all along. It's been quite obvious.

So now it's changing from "it's a government run program" to "it's the first step to a government run program"?

We are the ONLY modern, industrialized nation without government run healthcare. I refuse to believe that we cannot only do it but also do it better than any other nation in the world. The single best thing we could do help make our companies more globally competitive is to remove employee healthcare costs from their cost of doing business.

The former is what the op 'said' was being said all along; truth is from the later. Over and over again you'll see that if you bother to look.

 

[Listening]

how does the commerce clause apply if not buying insurance = not engaging in commerce

creative embellishment

EDIT: But fwiw, Dragon was referring to the general welfare clause, which by the prevailing 'interpretation' means the federal government can do virtually anything they want. Which of course raises the question of why they bothered with silly details like the post office and national defense. It's a tiring argument, one in which reason has historically given way to expediency.

Very true and something that the right does not attack enough. I mean what else can you expect when you have SCOTUS members like E. Warren basing opinions on whether or not something is right...not if it is contitutional.

General Welfare was explained by Madison later on and it has to have limited meaning in the context of the environment in which the USC was formed and ratified. To claim this is essentially an open door to do whatever you want for any general welfare is simply not defensible (other than the fact that traitors like Warren have essentially used the USC to wipe their fat asses).

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Socialized "medicine", what the fuck is wrong with you? When you were in the military and even now you have Tricare as a retiree, do you call that "socialized medicine?" You dumb fucking right wingers look like sick puppies parroting the bullshit of your pundits, "socialized medicine," what a dick head.

One moron applauding another. How amusing.

The moron is you because technically you are receiving "socialized medicine" or something very, very akin to it yet you're rallying against it heavily for everyone else.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.

Unless it's repealed by clear-headed people, it will create more problems than it solves. Those who want socialized medicine will claim the only thing that can save us is government-run healthcare.

This has been the plan all along. It's been quite obvious.

I agree with Health Care for all---just not mandated. If the gov forces everyone to buy Health Care where will it end. A huge slippery slope. Today Health care, tomorrow Firestone Tires.

However, I don't think the Sct. are clear headed people. They are the court that said Corporations are People? Look how that has gone over in the country. People are outraged.

What's the difference between corporations, groups of people organized for a common purpose, donating to political campaigns; and unions, groups of people organized for a common purpose, donating to political campaigns?

I can't think of one. The left breathlessly assures me there is one, but can't seem to articulate it.

Without the mandated portion of the bill---the entire bill fall apart. There is other way to pay for it unless healthy people pay for sick people's care. But when people get sick they should get care and not be allowed to die just cause they can't afford it.

As a country we should take care of the sick. It is the morally right thing to do. On the other hand, we shouldn't be forced to purchase a product we don't need or want.

You can't legislate morality.

And that is exactly what extremist right wingers attempt to do.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

How about if I simply say, I don't want health insurance....period.

I don't want so called "Obamacare" or any other kind of "care" meaning insurance.

I won't have the option of not having it...will I ?

Ron Paul said he'd let you die.

And I don't begrudge him that at all.

Now you're a retard, letting people die is ok?

 

[Annie]

Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.

Unless it's repealed by clear-headed people, it will create more problems than it solves. Those who want socialized medicine will claim the only thing that can save us is government-run healthcare.

This has been the plan all along. It's been quite obvious.

So now it's changing from "it's a government run program" to "it's the first step to a government run program"?

We are the ONLY modern, industrialized nation without government run healthcare. I refuse to believe that we cannot only do it but also do it better than any other nation in the world. The single best thing we could do help make our companies more globally competitive is to remove employee healthcare costs from their cost of doing business.

The former is what the op 'said' was being said all along; truth is from the later. Over and over again you'll see that if you bother to look.

bump. So many dishonest characters.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Where are you going to get the doctors you need, Bass? The left claims that millions of Americans don't have access to health care now. What happens to the already-overburdened system when they're suddenly tossed into it? Add to that a cap on reimbursement for treatment.

Who would want to go into medicine facing less pay and longer hours?

There are no personal attacks in this post. Please answer my questions.

There is no proof that universal healthcare makes people less likely to want to go into the medical field, these doctors charge sky high prices well above market value. I already explained that, doctors can charge whatever prices they want now, that's why the cost of health care in the US is more than any other country, even higher than in country that have universal healthcare. Enough with your hypothetical strawman argument.

The cap on reimbursement is to keep health insurance companies from passing on their losses and operating costs onto the consumers.

So all you have is wishful thinking.

Oh, and thanks for the obligatory leftist "I've decided they make too much money" class envy bullshit.

WTH are you talking about monkey? Its a well known fact that health insurance companies do pass on their operating costs to consumers by raising premiums and yes doctors in the United States charge whatever prices they want. If you want to be a damn fool and let companies get richer off of you via them passing on operating costs go right the hell on ahead but don't give me that class envy BS, you right wing jackasses who aren't rich look like retards parroting the class envy rhetoric of the rich.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

You lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution. It specifically describes what the Federal government may do. If it doesn't grant the Feds a power, that power is then given to the States or the people.

The Constitution isn't a blank check for the government. Leftists consistently fail to understand that.

One again jackass...

Weren't you bitching about personal attacks earlier?

...explain how the law conflicts with the Constitution.

The Constitution does not give the Federal government the power to compel the purchase of a product. If you believe it does, point out the article.

Don't give me trolling right wing talking points and ad-hominems against leftists, that's childish. The fact remains that Obama's health care law is closely modeled after and even copied from a plan the GOPtards wanted, are the GOPtards leftists too?

It's been explained to you over and over. You're either too dumb to get it or too star-struck by the Obamessiah to see it. And since you bitterly cling to your ignorance, I don't believe I'll waste any more time trying to correct your dumbassery.

Can you drive a car without car insurance? No, your BS is refuted and yes, universal health care was the idea of the Republicans first retard, so your leftist rhetorical BS doesn't fly here, pull your head out of your rectum.