Interstate clause precedents you dolts!

[Avatar4321]

After reading the "wheat story" you still trust the government to run your fucking healthcare? And you call us dolts? Negged dumbass.

I know. Insane isn't it? One progressive powergrab gets approved so therefore all should be. Too much trouble to just rescind the powergrab.

 

[Avatar4321]

Getting negged from you dolts, while you sputter and spew and display your lack of understanding of the form of government you live under, is a badge of HONOR, you fools!

I am going to REALLY ENJOY watching you CONZ choke on your own bile AND this thread ALL DAY LONG!

Please, tell us all, how has anything you posted demonstrate that we lack an understanding of our govenrment.

What I've read seems to be evidence to me that many of us understands the evils that corrupt and abuse governments can create for the people. Which is precisely why we are fighting for the Constitution and a restoration of our individual liberties and for justice.

 

[The T]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn



Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.


This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

Interstate clause precedents you dolts!

Interstate...WHAT exactly...?

 

[Avatar4321]

Getting negged from you dolts, while you sputter and spew and display your lack of understanding of the form of government you live under, is a badge of HONOR, you fools!

I am going to REALLY ENJOY watching you CONZ choke on your own bile AND this thread ALL DAY LONG!

Why wouldn't we neg rep you? You're batting about zero on nearly everything.

nearly? You mean he is doing well on one thing? Well, congrats Decept, keep working at it.

 

[The T]

Getting negged from you dolts, while you sputter and spew and display your lack of understanding of the form of government you live under, is a badge of HONOR, you fools!

I am going to REALLY ENJOY watching you CONZ choke on your own bile AND this thread ALL DAY LONG!

Son? It is YOU that fails to understand the system. Just because we have endured over 100 years of Progressive dismantling means nothing. WE are taking it back and putting this Republic back where it needs to be.

 

[The T]

jesus christ...its about making sure states dont tariff eachother. that is the only thing the "clause" was meant to do.

Precisely.

Much like the Electoral College. One State doesn't hold more power over another.

 

[Sanctions]

Decepticon writes:I merely pointed out that overturning a precedent is a LOT harder than going along with one.

Answer me this...if you were a betting man, and the wager was if a panel of judges would overturn a precedent or NOT overturn a precedent, which would you take, if you weren't able to know the details of the case (blind testing)

Well, perhaps part of the problem is that you simply ignore recent decisions that deal with commerce clasue power, and depend on Filburn which allowed federal regulations within a selected market on producers of a commodity. Filburn first.

Filburn as you point out addressed the regulation of wheat in the US, with the argument that additional production of wheat, regardless of use for personal consumption, has an impact on the overall economic pricing of wheat and therefore is subject to federal regulation. Regulation is of course nothing new...this is true in our society today within many markets... quotas / caps on the amount of fishing one can do, the amount of corn produced by farms, etc. The government can regulate those markets of course, and no one has any objection to that. The difference here is that those individuals are already engaged in that commerce, and are thus subject to regulations. Filburn could have in the end ceased producing wheat and entered into another trade....its his choice. What the Filburn decision did NOT argue, and this is important for you, is that every american has to purchase two loaves of bread to sustain wheat pricing based on the idea that everyone outside of the marketplace, regardless of whether or not you ate or wanted bread, must engage in commerce in order to stabilize pricing. Thats what you are attempting to do here, which is why Filburn wasn't really discussed that much in the oral arguments. What you are attempting to do is compel those who elect not to engage in healthcare to purchase healthcare in order to offset debts the government has elected to assume (primarily treatment of anyone in the ER). Morally sound yes, financially not so much.

Second, Filburn isn't the most recent in terms of precedents, and really its US v Lopez in 1995 that has provided a limiting line of the use of the commerce clause. The government in that case argued that it had the right under the commerce clause to regulate fire arms at a school. The USSC held "that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns...". The idea is that the commerce clause does have limitations. Now, before you ramble on about how economies of scale in health care seperate HC from Lopez, Morrision echoed that restrictive approach to the commerce clause when it held in 2000 that individuals could not bring federal suits against alleged attackers under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Morrision went so far to state "the concern that we expressed in Lopez that Congress might use the Commerce Clause to completely obliterate the Constitution’s distinction between national and local authority." Thats really what is at issue here. What limitations are placed on Congress if we (the USSC)allow for such an expansion?

You can counter with Raich, which did extend regulation of marijuana in California under the authority of the commerce clause, and post-dates Lopez, Morrision, and the US Army Corps of Engineers in 2001 which all limited the application of the commerce clause, however, it should be noted that Raich was a regulation on drug use/production, for which both Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia are huge advocates for. Scalia actually carves out the distinction of his finding from that of the Lopez line, which futher erodes this argument that Filburn controls. Point is, Scalia is one of the biggest advocates for the Tenth Amendment, and the one leading the charge against the commerce clause and its scope of power with regards to health care.

You strapped yourself to a precident and made a bunch of "hard to overturn precedents" arguments which is rather ironic considering that you need the Court to essentially do just that... break from the much more recent Lopez/Morrision line of commerce clause decisions that have limited the scope of power for the government.

With Health Care, does Congress have the right Constitutionally under the commerce clause to mandate that everyone purchase a product for the purposes of regulating a market? Not states mind you, which is why the Mass. HC law wasn't contested on a constitutional basis, but rather the government? What limits would exist if that was allowable? The Lopez line of decisions would argue no. These are the questions being raised, and by all accounts, it appears this will be another 5-4 decision, and my guess is 5-4 that the mandate gets struck down. The severability arguments are interesting, but less predictable.

So the answer to your question, in keeping with the recent string of rulings with Raich being the exception based on the nature of what was regulated, the answer would be they wouldn't reverse themselves based upon the most recent line of precedents...it would be a 5-4 ruling against the government, electing to restict the use of the commerce clause in scope. I think Filburn might actually hurt you in the end.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn

Actually, Roscoe owned a farm, and was growing wheat to feed his cows, which were then sold in the interstate market. Although I think the decisions was completely wrong, anyone who actually understands it can recognize the logic involved in insisting that not buying that amount of wheat did impact the market, and also helped Roscoe undersell other cattlemen who actually had to pay for their feed.

Thanks for starting out by proving you are willing to lie to score points though.

Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.

Higher wheat prices benefited all Americans? Paying more for bread and meat benefited all Americans? How?

Roscoe was actually participating in the market, even if all he did was grow his own wheat. Even the government admits that not everyone will participate in the health care market, even if you don't. In fact, the PPACA actually exempts some people from buying insurance.

What the government is trying to do is force people who choose not to participate in the health insurance market to participate in it by claiming that they will almost certainly participate in a totally different market. That is a bit like claiming that, because you eat, you have to buy a shopping cart.

In other words, it only makes sense to idiots.

This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

Actually, since it was found unconstitutional in a federal court, and struck down completely, it actually isn't the law of the land. Congratulations though, not only did you start your post with a lie, you ended it with a different one. I would bring on a half assed analysis, but your post doesn't even need that much effort.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

conz!!!!!!

are you by any chance an airline pilot? for jet blue?

Overhead Bin - Airline crew member mental health in spotlight after captain's breakdown

Still obsessing over me, Dainty?

Does Bawney Fwank know you want me bad? He gonna be jealous, boy...

Bawney Fwank knows that you grow better pot than dante so he wants you more

 

[daveman]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn



Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.


This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

Of course, because an angry internet retard knows more about the law than the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

LOL dave.

Ask him how health insurance can be regulated under the interstate commerce laws when it is illegal for insurance companies to sell health insurance interstate, or across state lines.

now the silly answers you get to that are truly funny and scary in their ignorance.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn



Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.


This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

The problem is Obamacare removes choice and in no helps all Americans. The plan still leaves 16 million uninsured.
Quite frankly Americans will resist attempts to ram this POS down our throats.
This socialized medicine pact is not commerce. It is a tax.
The SCOTUS will see right through this as an attempt by the Obama administration to acquire braod powers not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
BTW. Associate Justice Sotomayor is showing her true liberal colors by stating that while she disagrees with the mandate she asks why the Court cannot simply give this back to Congress with the rest of the pieces intact.
Two things. One, she knows according to the law, because the Congress neglected to insert severability inot ACA the issue cannot be sent back to Congress. Two, she is attempting to sway the other Justices to 'decide not to decide'.
This thing looks dead in the water. Justice Kennedy is the swing vote. His is the only one that counts. There are 4 solid libs and 4 solid conservatives.
Look, eventually the GOP will be running the show on Capitol Hill, at that point ACA is dead anyway. It's that simple.
Obamacare is BAD law. It sets a very bad precedent. Such precedent will permit government broad sweeping powers to do basically anything it wishes irrespective of the Constitution. We cannot allow that to happen.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn



Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.


This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

Wickard needs to join Dred Scott, Plessey and Korematsu on the ashheap of history

 

[thereisnospoon]

Getting negged from you dolts, while you sputter and spew and display your lack of understanding of the form of government you live under, is a badge of HONOR, you fools!

I am going to REALLY ENJOY watching you CONZ choke on your own bile AND this thread ALL DAY LONG!

Typical reaction from a person who's argument has been summarily CRUSHED by reality.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How does one reply to a thread where the poster suggests throwing out "precedent" as a legal precept?

By quoting from dissenting judges...duh!

Here's another one:

"If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything ... quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States."
-- Justice Clarence Thomas
U. S. Supreme Court Justice

dissenting judges = precedent should be thrown out?

In what universe?
Oh, the one where you make sense or know what you're talking about.

Give three good reasons why we as a people should trust the US Federal government to break precedence in this issue. That precedence is the fact that our government has never demonstrated the ability to administer any program or policy which operates within it's budget, operates without the need for layers of bureaucracy, increases the number of federal employees, and completes it's task within mandated time constraints.
Do you really expect the American people to be so gullible that we will accept Obamacare as "ok we will trust you this one more time"....
Please. The numbers already indicate that Obamacare is a FAIL.
Look, if you wish to place all your eggs in the federal government basket, be my guest. Do expect the rest of us to join your scheme.
Still waiting for those examples of government programs which operate efficiently and within budget absent of red tape.

 

[thereisnospoon]

dissenting judges = precedent should be thrown out?

In what universe?
Oh, the one where you make sense or know what you're talking about.

Actually, the SC may overturn a precedent when they feel it no longer applies. The court regularly revisits and reconsiders its precedents, as Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the current chief justice’s former boss and mentor, once observed succinctly. “Stare decisis is not an inexorable command,” he said in a 1991 opinion that included, in a page and a half of small type, a list of 33 precedents that the court had overturned in the previous 20 years.

I'm sure you know better though...

I bet you've agreed with SC rulings overturning previous decisions: In Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986, the Supreme Court dismissed as “facetious” the notion that the Constitution offered protection for gay rights. Overturning that decision 17 years later, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy declared for the majority in Lawrence v. Texas: “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.”

33 out of how many precedents?
How many were upheld?

Once again, a CON presents a fact like a LONE CHILD in the woods, pretending it doesn't have relatives.

Let's put this into perspective, if you have the facts at your disposal.
Or are you just saying stuff and not know if it's true or not?
At its root the common law system rests on a fallacy: appeal to authority. The older decision will generally be upheld even if it is wrong, stupid, or otherwise bad.
Why are precedents important

You implied that it never happens.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Getting negged from you dolts, while you sputter and spew and display your lack of understanding of the form of government you live under, is a badge of HONOR, you fools!

I am going to REALLY ENJOY watching you CONZ choke on your own bile AND this thread ALL DAY LONG!

I always love how the most stupid among us are always the ones telling the rest of us we don't know what we're talking about.

Or how we should think. Or what's best for us.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You're closer than you think.

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

Answer the question bird brain! Did the Ashcroft v. Raich or Wickard v. Filburn force all citizens to purchase or smoke pot, purchase or eat wheat, purchase or use health-care??????

I already posted the answer to that question in the OP. Let's see if you can find it.

HINT: NOT only did someone have to buy something, they also had to pay a FINE trying to AVOID it.

Jeez.
No wonder the country is so fucked up. You CONZ can't even READ at a 6th grade comprehension level.

What is your interest in Obamacare? Why would you want socialized medicine?
Rhetorical question here....Have you noticed that nearly everyone disagrees with you on this issue? Where are your liberal friends on this board?

 

[Decepticon]

Answer the question bird brain! Did the Ashcroft v. Raich or Wickard v. Filburn force all citizens to purchase or smoke pot, purchase or eat wheat, purchase or use health-care??????

I already posted the answer to that question in the OP. Let's see if you can find it.

HINT: NOT only did someone have to buy something, they also had to pay a FINE trying to AVOID it.

Jeez.
No wonder the country is so fucked up. You CONZ can't even READ at a 6th grade comprehension level.

What is your interest in Obamacare? Why would you want socialized medicine?
Rhetorical question here....Have you noticed that nearly everyone disagrees with you on this issue? Where are your liberal friends on this board?

Why would I want socialized medicine?

Oh, because I've seen it in action with my own family who fell ill overseas and got better care than they would have gotten here. And it cost them NOTHING, even though they were not citizens of those countries. How CIVILIZED it was.
And EVERYONE gets it. And you don't lose your HOUSE, because you don't go into bankruptcy, because your medical bills are paid.

Oh and it costs half as much as what I'm paying now.


That enough reasons for you?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I already posted the answer to that question in the OP. Let's see if you can find it.

HINT: NOT only did someone have to buy something, they also had to pay a FINE trying to AVOID it.

Jeez.
No wonder the country is so fucked up. You CONZ can't even READ at a 6th grade comprehension level.

What is your interest in Obamacare? Why would you want socialized medicine?
Rhetorical question here....Have you noticed that nearly everyone disagrees with you on this issue? Where are your liberal friends on this board?

Why would I want socialized medicine?

Oh, because I've seen it in action with my own family who fell ill overseas and got better care than they would have gotten here. And it cost them NOTHING, even though they were not citizens of those countries. How CIVILIZED it was.
And EVERYONE gets it. And you don't lose your HOUSE, because you don't go into bankruptcy, because your medical bills are paid.

Oh and it costs half as much as what I'm paying now.


That enough reasons for you?

Health care reform is good and needed

However, reforming health care with a bill that gives the federal government the power to tell a private citizen they must buy products from a private company for the greater good is not good nor needed.