Most open administration in history?

[Listening]

can you provide any proof he has blatantly violated the constitution?

Well, let's see. The constitution was put in place to restrain the federal government essetially giving it a specific scope. Health Care can't be found on the front or back of hte document......

Next.

really the health care law? this wont be decided until this summer. as half the federal judges found it constitutional and the other half unconstitutional. low and behold the 3 that said it was constitutional were appointed by democratic presidents and the three who found it unconstitutional were appointed by GOP presidents.

not exactly a glaring violation of the constitution at this point.

and if you follow the rulings, the decisions hinged upon whether or not health care is a product that crosses state lines, and can thus be regulated under the interstate commerce clause. there was even one ruling in which the judge did not accept a lawyers argument that people should be free to choose to participate in the health care market. he rejected this.

Obama Health Care Reform Ruling: Appeals Court Upholds Law
this ruling was by conservative judges as well.

Health care law held constitutional in latest appeals court ruling - Page 2 - CNN

The states say individuals cannot be forced to buy insurance, a "product" they may neither want nor need. The Justice Department has countered the states' argument by saying that since every American will need medical care at some point in their lives, individuals do not "choose" to participate in the health care market. Federal officials cite 2008 figures of $43 billion in uncompensated costs from the millions of uninsured people who receive health services, costs that are shifted to insurance companies and passed on to consumers.

This post isn't even worth the time.

For anyone who has any understanding of how our system of govenrment works......costs have nothing to do with constitutionality. For the Justice Department to argue this point is what is so sick and why Obama has wiped his ass with the USC.

That you don't get that (or don't care) is even more gross.

 

[Syphon]

Well, let's see. The constitution was put in place to restrain the federal government essetially giving it a specific scope. Health Care can't be found on the front or back of hte document......

Next.

really the health care law? this wont be decided until this summer. as half the federal judges found it constitutional and the other half unconstitutional. low and behold the 3 that said it was constitutional were appointed by democratic presidents and the three who found it unconstitutional were appointed by GOP presidents.

not exactly a glaring violation of the constitution at this point.

and if you follow the rulings, the decisions hinged upon whether or not health care is a product that crosses state lines, and can thus be regulated under the interstate commerce clause. there was even one ruling in which the judge did not accept a lawyers argument that people should be free to choose to participate in the health care market. he rejected this.

Obama Health Care Reform Ruling: Appeals Court Upholds Law
this ruling was by conservative judges as well.

Health care law held constitutional in latest appeals court ruling - Page 2 - CNN

The states say individuals cannot be forced to buy insurance, a "product" they may neither want nor need. The Justice Department has countered the states' argument by saying that since every American will need medical care at some point in their lives, individuals do not "choose" to participate in the health care market. Federal officials cite 2008 figures of $43 billion in uncompensated costs from the millions of uninsured people who receive health services, costs that are shifted to insurance companies and passed on to consumers.

This post isn't even worth the time.

For anyone who has any understanding of how our system of govenrment works......costs have nothing to do with constitutionality. For the Justice Department to argue this point is what is so sick and why Obama has wiped his ass with the USC.

That you don't get that (or don't care) is even more gross.

tell me how one chooses to have a stroke? or chooses to get cancer? or chooses to get hit by a car? or chooses to have a heart attack? or chooses to get shot in a drive by?

if those are choices i can make and control, i will gladly agree with you that i choose to participate in the health care market.

 

[Listening]

really the health care law? this wont be decided until this summer. as half the federal judges found it constitutional and the other half unconstitutional. low and behold the 3 that said it was constitutional were appointed by democratic presidents and the three who found it unconstitutional were appointed by GOP presidents.

not exactly a glaring violation of the constitution at this point.

and if you follow the rulings, the decisions hinged upon whether or not health care is a product that crosses state lines, and can thus be regulated under the interstate commerce clause. there was even one ruling in which the judge did not accept a lawyers argument that people should be free to choose to participate in the health care market. he rejected this.

Obama Health Care Reform Ruling: Appeals Court Upholds Law
this ruling was by conservative judges as well.

Health care law held constitutional in latest appeals court ruling - Page 2 - CNN

The states say individuals cannot be forced to buy insurance, a "product" they may neither want nor need. The Justice Department has countered the states' argument by saying that since every American will need medical care at some point in their lives, individuals do not "choose" to participate in the health care market. Federal officials cite 2008 figures of $43 billion in uncompensated costs from the millions of uninsured people who receive health services, costs that are shifted to insurance companies and passed on to consumers.

This post isn't even worth the time.

For anyone who has any understanding of how our system of govenrment works......costs have nothing to do with constitutionality. For the Justice Department to argue this point is what is so sick and why Obama has wiped his ass with the USC.

That you don't get that (or don't care) is even more gross.

tell me how one chooses to have a stroke? or chooses to get cancer? or chooses to get hit by a car? or chooses to have a heart attack? or chooses to get shot in a drive by?

if those are choices i can make and control, i will gladly agree with you that i choose to participate in the health care market.

This was about constitutionality....not what you think is right. I hate to point it out to you, but they are not the same thing.

So please tell me how your post applies.

 

[Syphon]

This post isn't even worth the time.

For anyone who has any understanding of how our system of govenrment works......costs have nothing to do with constitutionality. For the Justice Department to argue this point is what is so sick and why Obama has wiped his ass with the USC.

That you don't get that (or don't care) is even more gross.

tell me how one chooses to have a stroke? or chooses to get cancer? or chooses to get hit by a car? or chooses to have a heart attack? or chooses to get shot in a drive by?

if those are choices i can make and control, i will gladly agree with you that i choose to participate in the health care market.

This was about constitutionality....not what you think is right. I hate to point it out to you, but they are not the same thing.

So please tell me how your post applies.

the post applies since the entire argument is based upon the use of the commerce clause and an individuals right to choose.

we can argue back and forth about the commerce clause, and will probably disagree. the fact the health care does cross state line, is the main point of argument that the DOJ uses, since if i purchase a health insurance policy in CA, and i travel to NV and get sick or hurt, my policy follows me across state lines. thus it defined as interstate commerce.

the second part, is the the opposition is saying that you can not force some to purchase a product, as it is their right to chose to participate in health care or not. i have simply shown several instances where one does not choose to participate in health care. you do no choose to have a stroke, it just happens. you do not choose to have a heart attack, it happens. you do no choose to get cancer, it just happens. it was this line of reasoning in which the 3 judges who found the law constitutional, based their decisions upon.

 

[Intense]

really the health care law? this wont be decided until this summer. as half the federal judges found it constitutional and the other half unconstitutional. low and behold the 3 that said it was constitutional were appointed by democratic presidents and the three who found it unconstitutional were appointed by GOP presidents.

not exactly a glaring violation of the constitution at this point.

and if you follow the rulings, the decisions hinged upon whether or not health care is a product that crosses state lines, and can thus be regulated under the interstate commerce clause. there was even one ruling in which the judge did not accept a lawyers argument that people should be free to choose to participate in the health care market. he rejected this.

Obama Health Care Reform Ruling: Appeals Court Upholds Law
this ruling was by conservative judges as well.

Health care law held constitutional in latest appeals court ruling - Page 2 - CNN

The states say individuals cannot be forced to buy insurance, a "product" they may neither want nor need. The Justice Department has countered the states' argument by saying that since every American will need medical care at some point in their lives, individuals do not "choose" to participate in the health care market. Federal officials cite 2008 figures of $43 billion in uncompensated costs from the millions of uninsured people who receive health services, costs that are shifted to insurance companies and passed on to consumers.

This post isn't even worth the time.

For anyone who has any understanding of how our system of govenrment works......costs have nothing to do with constitutionality. For the Justice Department to argue this point is what is so sick and why Obama has wiped his ass with the USC.

That you don't get that (or don't care) is even more gross.

tell me how one chooses to have a stroke? or chooses to get cancer? or chooses to get hit by a car? or chooses to have a heart attack? or chooses to get shot in a drive by?

if those are choices i can make and control, i will gladly agree with you that i choose to participate in the health care market.

By not eating Genetically Enhanced foods. By forgetting to look both ways before crossing the street. By not being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[Intense]

"Yes it is""...

 

[Syphon]

This post isn't even worth the time.

For anyone who has any understanding of how our system of govenrment works......costs have nothing to do with constitutionality. For the Justice Department to argue this point is what is so sick and why Obama has wiped his ass with the USC.

That you don't get that (or don't care) is even more gross.

tell me how one chooses to have a stroke? or chooses to get cancer? or chooses to get hit by a car? or chooses to have a heart attack? or chooses to get shot in a drive by?

if those are choices i can make and control, i will gladly agree with you that i choose to participate in the health care market.

By not eating Genetically Enhanced foods. By forgetting to look both ways before crossing the street. By not being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

so you are claiming that one chooses to get cancer, have a stroke, have a heart attack or get hit by a car?

bwhahahahahaha. what fantasy world do you live in?

 

[Listening]

Obama wiped his ass with the USC.

The health care bill is just one example.

That 3 judges (political appointees) use some line of reasoning is no justification.

Calling yourself a constitutional scholar (as our beloved idiot in chief does) is just saying you are good at getting around it.

 

[Listening]

tell me how one chooses to have a stroke? or chooses to get cancer? or chooses to get hit by a car? or chooses to have a heart attack? or chooses to get shot in a drive by?

if those are choices i can make and control, i will gladly agree with you that i choose to participate in the health care market.

By not eating Genetically Enhanced foods. By forgetting to look both ways before crossing the street. By not being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

so you are claiming that one chooses to get cancer, have a stroke, have a heart attack or get hit by a car?

bwhahahahahaha. what fantasy world do you live in?

You somehow seem to be of the assumption that if someone has a heart attack, they have to be treated. Where is that written ?

 

[Syphon]

By not eating Genetically Enhanced foods. By forgetting to look both ways before crossing the street. By not being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

so you are claiming that one chooses to get cancer, have a stroke, have a heart attack or get hit by a car?

bwhahahahahaha. what fantasy world do you live in?

You somehow seem to be of the assumption that if someone has a heart attack, they have to be treated. Where is that written ?

hospitals are required by law to treat patients regardless of any ability to pay:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor (EMTALA) Act mandates that everybody must be seen and STABILIZED, without regard for ability to pay. But the emergency departments are not obligated to do anything beyond that.

 

[Listening]

so you are claiming that one chooses to get cancer, have a stroke, have a heart attack or get hit by a car?

bwhahahahahaha. what fantasy world do you live in?

You somehow seem to be of the assumption that if someone has a heart attack, they have to be treated. Where is that written ?

hospitals are required by law to treat patients regardless of any ability to pay:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor (EMTALA) Act mandates that everybody must be seen and STABILIZED, without regard for ability to pay. But the emergency departments are not obligated to do anything beyond that.

Open you little mind.....

What if they don't want ot be treated ? And that act was not passed until 1986/87. What about before then.

 

[Syphon]

You somehow seem to be of the assumption that if someone has a heart attack, they have to be treated. Where is that written ?

hospitals are required by law to treat patients regardless of any ability to pay:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor (EMTALA) Act mandates that everybody must be seen and STABILIZED, without regard for ability to pay. But the emergency departments are not obligated to do anything beyond that.

Open you little mind.....

What if they don't want ot be treated ? And that act was not passed until 1986/87. What about before then.

no, it does not say say you can be forced to be treated. any patient can "refuse" services. it simply says that you have to be treated should you need it and ask for it regardless of your ability to pay.

your second comment is somewhat irrelevant because we are talking about the law as it stands today, and not in 86/87