SCOTUS/Healthcare: For those of you who want a sneak peak of the Oral Arguments.

[The Rabbi]

ummmmm....so access to health care is a right?

and you missed the point I was making. see a few posts later where I clarify that no they arent the same, but the power is equatable.

What orifice did you pull that out of?
Health care is not a right. It is not a privilege either. It is a good/service that is sold. Like shoe shines.
The power is not equatable. States and the fed gov do not have the same power.

Do you have the right to live?

Yes. Unfortunately that includes you too.
WHy do you ask? What irrelevent off base comparison are you going to make now that the corporate vs private thing has gone nowhere?

 

[Liability]

ummmmm....so access to health care is a right?

and you missed the point I was making. see a few posts later where I clarify that no they arent the same, but the power is equatable.

What orifice did you pull that out of?
Health care is not a right. It is not a privilege either. It is a good/service that is sold. Like shoe shines.
The power is not equatable. States and the fed gov do not have the same power.

Do you have the right to live?

You and I and all other people DO have the right to life.

And?

That translates (in your estimation) into a "right" to health care? That "right" doesn't exist.

And even if you had some alleged "right [sic] to health care," that right would NOT justify the imposition on all of us of a requirement to purchase any kind of insurance product at all.

 

[Vidi]

What orifice did you pull that out of?
Health care is not a right. It is not a privilege either. It is a good/service that is sold. Like shoe shines.
The power is not equatable. States and the fed gov do not have the same power.

Do you have the right to live?

You and I and all other people DO have the right to life.

And?

That translates (in your estimation) into a "right" to health care? That "right" doesn't exist.

And even if you had some alleged "right [sic] to health care," that right would NOT justify the imposition on all of us of a requirement to purchase any kind of insurance product at all.

So if the individual has a right to life, that right ends when it "imposes" on others?

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you have the right to live?

You and I and all other people DO have the right to life.

And?

That translates (in your estimation) into a "right" to health care? That "right" doesn't exist.

And even if you had some alleged "right [sic] to health care," that right would NOT justify the imposition on all of us of a requirement to purchase any kind of insurance product at all.

So if the individual has a right to life, that right ends when it "imposes" on others?

No.
Next question.

 

[Vidi]

You and I and all other people DO have the right to life.

And?

That translates (in your estimation) into a "right" to health care? That "right" doesn't exist.

And even if you had some alleged "right [sic] to health care," that right would NOT justify the imposition on all of us of a requirement to purchase any kind of insurance product at all.

So if the individual has a right to life, that right ends when it "imposes" on others?

No.
Next question.

Under what circomstances can and should the rights of the individual be removed?

 

[Liability]

Do you have the right to live?

You and I and all other people DO have the right to life.

And?

That translates (in your estimation) into a "right" to health care? That "right" doesn't exist.

And even if you had some alleged "right [sic] to health care," that right would NOT justify the imposition on all of us of a requirement to purchase any kind of insurance product at all.

So if the individual has a right to life, that right ends when it "imposes" on others?

I don't see anybody making any such "argument" other than you tossing out that strawman.

 

[Vidi]

You and I and all other people DO have the right to life.

And?

That translates (in your estimation) into a "right" to health care? That "right" doesn't exist.

And even if you had some alleged "right [sic] to health care," that right would NOT justify the imposition on all of us of a requirement to purchase any kind of insurance product at all.

So if the individual has a right to life, that right ends when it "imposes" on others?

I don't see anybody making any such "argument" other than you tossing out that strawman.

YOU made that argument.

even if you had some alleged "right [sic] to health care," that right would NOT justify the imposition on all of us

You said it. I simply asked based on your assertion that even if there was an individual right to health care it doesnt justify the imposition on the collective.

 

[The Rabbi]

So if the individual has a right to life, that right ends when it "imposes" on others?

No.
Next question.

Under what circomstances can and should the rights of the individual be removed?

After due process.
Next irrelevant question.

 

[Vidi]

No.
Next question.

Under what circomstances can and should the rights of the individual be removed?

After due process.
Next irrelevant question.

Ignoring the we, the people, for a second...

And who has the power to that due process? The government? Or you and me, natural persons - citizens? or corporate persons?

 

[The Rabbi]

Under what circomstances can and should the rights of the individual be removed?

After due process.
Next irrelevant question.

Ignoring the we, the people, for a second...

And who has the power to that due process? The government? Or you and me, natural persons - citizens? or corporate persons?

The government. Is this going somewhere?

 

[Liability]

So if the individual has a right to life, that right ends when it "imposes" on others?

I don't see anybody making any such "argument" other than you tossing out that strawman.

YOU made that argument.

No. I did not.

even if you had some alleged "right [sic] to health care," that right would NOT justify the imposition on all of us

You said it. I simply asked based on your assertion that even if there was an individual right to health care it doesnt justify the imposition on the collective.

Wrong. You misunderstood. I suspect it was intentional. A right to life does not justify YOUR imposition on all of us of some claimed obligation to purchase health insurance. One thing has nothing to DO with the other.

We have a right to freedom of speech, too. That doesn't justify your demand that I pay for your newspaper. Why? Because again, one thing has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Vidi]

After due process.
Next irrelevant question.

Ignoring the we, the people, for a second...

And who has the power to that due process? The government? Or you and me, natural persons - citizens? or corporate persons?

The government. Is this going somewhere?

Yes it is.

And does the government have the obligation, either moral or legal, and the power to step in when a citizen is being denied their rights without governmental due process?

 

[Vidi]

I don't see anybody making any such "argument" other than you tossing out that strawman.

YOU made that argument.

No. I did not.

even if you had some alleged "right [sic] to health care," that right would NOT justify the imposition on all of us

You said it. I simply asked based on your assertion that even if there was an individual right to health care it doesnt justify the imposition on the collective.

Wrong. You misunderstood. I suspect it was intentional. A right to life does not justify YOUR imposition on all of us of some claimed obligation to purchase health insurance. One thing has nothing to DO with the other.

We have a right to freedom of speech, too. That doesn't justify your demand that I pay for your newspaper. Why? Because again, one thing has nothing to do with the other.

I simply asked a question based on the words you chose to use. If you feel I misunderstood, then perhaps you should choose different words next time.

 

[Liability]

A penalty provision is not necessarily a "tax" just because the dopey Congress implemented it through IRS tax collection procedures in the Bill.

If it is just a penalty, then the claim is a kind of brutish one that the government has some naked power to compel citizens to buy a specific product regardless of their preferences. Even the Administration hasn't gone that far although they DO claim that it is in the nature of being just a penalty....

If it is a "tax," then the claim is that the government HAS a recognized authority to impose taxes.

Obviously, the Obama Administration wants it both ways -- depending on which "need" they seek to address.

But there's another problem they have. I am sure it's been mentioned here before, but it bears a little repetition.

It is a direct tax. And it is thus impermissible because it is not apportioned amongst the States. That is, it is not an "income" tax and it is not an excise tax. If it is any tax at all, it can only then be a direct tax, but a direct tax that is not apportioned amongst the States is violative of the Constitution. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 says,

"Apportionment of Representatives and taxes

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [sic] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three."

And Article I, Section 9, Clause 4: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The 16th Amendment did away with that requirement for INCOME taxation, but not otherwise.

There is thus EVERY valid reason for Congress to deny Congress the authority to impose this alleged "tax" at all. The mandate then falls. And the guts of ObamaCare do not operate in a vacuum. Without the mandate, the Act should fall, too.

 

[Liability]

YOU made that argument.

No. I did not.

You said it. I simply asked based on your assertion that even if there was an individual right to health care it doesnt justify the imposition on the collective.

Wrong. You misunderstood. I suspect it was intentional. A right to life does not justify YOUR imposition on all of us of some claimed obligation to purchase health insurance. One thing has nothing to DO with the other.

We have a right to freedom of speech, too. That doesn't justify your demand that I pay for your newspaper. Why? Because again, one thing has nothing to do with the other.

I simply asked a question based on the words you chose to use. If you feel I misunderstood, then perhaps you should choose different words next time.

I don't believe you did any such thing. You chose to try to spin it. If you lack the ability to understand basic English sentences, maybe "debate" aint your calling.

In any event, now that your lack of comprehension has been alleviated, maybe you can concede the point and move on to some other concern where you might again be the recipient of long overdue education.

No need to thank me. I'm here for you, kid.

 

[saveliberty]

The state has so poorly crafted this law, that they must call it one thing to comply in the first instance, then deny it completely in the next.

It will be interesting to see how the court strikes this down without jeopardizing other programs in the same breath.

The questions raised by justices tommorrow will probably show us how they propose to give their opinion.

 

[saveliberty]

Its the big leagues Vidi. Some days its okay to take your marble and go home.

 

[Vidi]

No. I did not.



Wrong. You misunderstood. I suspect it was intentional. A right to life does not justify YOUR imposition on all of us of some claimed obligation to purchase health insurance. One thing has nothing to DO with the other.

We have a right to freedom of speech, too. That doesn't justify your demand that I pay for your newspaper. Why? Because again, one thing has nothing to do with the other.

I simply asked a question based on the words you chose to use. If you feel I misunderstood, then perhaps you should choose different words next time.

I don't believe you did any such thing. You chose to try to spin it. If you lack the ability to understand basic English sentences, maybe "debate" aint your calling.

In any event, now that your lack of comprehension has been alleviated, maybe you can concede the point and move on to some other concern where you might again be the recipient of long overdue education.

No need to thank me. I'm here for you, kid.

at any point, during our exchange did I attack or defend the individual mandate or the affordable health care act or even universal health care in any way?

Look back on the posts to which I responded to you. The answer is no. I asked you for clarification of your own statements.

So whos spinning again?

Yeah...its the big leagues.

 

[Vidi]

The state has so poorly crafted this law, that they must call it one thing to comply in the first instance, then deny it completely in the next.

It will be interesting to see how the court strikes this down without jeopardizing other programs in the same breath.

The questions raised by justices tommorrow will probably show us how they propose to give their opinion.

Google Marbury vs Madison ( 1803 ) then see what Thomas jefferson had to say about it.

Based on your signature, I think you might find it interesting....especially in light of the case before the Supreme Court today.

 

[saveliberty]

I think the Federalists Papers address this issue better Vidi. The reason for interstate commerce regulation by the federal government was so as not to allow abuse of one state upon another. Unfair trade practices specifically. This problem doesn't really present itself in the case of Obamacare.