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

[Vidi]

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.

The Murbury vs Madison decision had nothing to do with interstate commerse.

 

[Liability]

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.

It is the big leagues? Then why are you playing like a minor leaguer?

YOU are spinning.

You "asked" questions in the sense of being rhetorical only. And we both know it, so you can stop pretending. You don't fool people here with such trite tripe.

If you want clarification, you need only ASK for clarification.

That's not what you did and you know it.

Now, if you care to be honest, stop hiding behind the childish pretense of claiming that you were only "asking questions." It's ok to be a big boy. If you actually want to carve out a position that we have an alleged "right" to health care, make your case. If you actually think you can make the case that a right to life is on par with a right to health care, MAKE YOUR CASE. But stop hiding behind cheap rhetoric to avoid being pinned down.

 

[Vidi]

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.

It is the big leagues? Then why are you playing like a minor leaguer?

YOU are spinning.

You "asked" questions in the sense of being rhetorical only. And we both know it, so you can stop pretending. You don't fool people here with such trite tripe.

If you want clarification, you need only ASK for clarification.

That's not what you did and you know it.

Now, if you care to be honest, stop hiding behind the childish pretense of claiming that you were only "asking questions." It's ok to be a big boy. If you actually want to carve out a position that we have an alleged "right" to health care, make your case. If you actually think you can make the case that a right to life is on par with a right to health care, MAKE YOUR CASE. But stop hiding behind cheap rhetoric to avoid being pinned down.

Youre now arguing style over content...anything else I'm doing that "imposes" upon you?

Get it all out. Youll feel better.

 

[Liability]

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.

It is the big leagues? Then why are you playing like a minor leaguer?

YOU are spinning.

You "asked" questions in the sense of being rhetorical only. And we both know it, so you can stop pretending. You don't fool people here with such trite tripe.

If you want clarification, you need only ASK for clarification.

That's not what you did and you know it.

Now, if you care to be honest, stop hiding behind the childish pretense of claiming that you were only "asking questions." It's ok to be a big boy. If you actually want to carve out a position that we have an alleged "right" to health care, make your case. If you actually think you can make the case that a right to life is on par with a right to health care, MAKE YOUR CASE. But stop hiding behind cheap rhetoric to avoid being pinned down.

Youre now arguing style over content...anything else I'm doing that "imposes" upon you?

Get it all out. Youll feel better.

So, you're just not up to the task then?

Fair enough. I accept your meek surrender.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

One has to wonder if Papa Obama now realizes that
it might not have been a good idea to try and publicly criticize the SCOTUS
at his State of the Union address. Besides being improper and lacking any class,
it served him no purpose to publicly humiliate them.


Something tells me that his narcissistic personality won't allow him to see
what a stupid idea this was now

Alito Shakes Head When Obama Criticizes Campaign Finance Decision - YouTube

That had to sting obama in the back side. "How dare that man say no to me."

 

[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.

The Murbury vs Madison decision had nothing to do with interstate commerse.

No it concerned a court appointment, which is why the Federalist Papers better addresses the issue at hand. Try to keep up.

 

[Publius1787]

Natural people can be citizens. Corporate people are corporations and a corporation can never be a citizen.

And while I may not agree with Corporate personhood, it's been long established that under the law, corporations ARE people. So no I'm not arguing that.

I'm asking to what extent does Congress have the power to protect one group of people from oppression from another?

If they are limited by the Constitution and that oppression is seen as Constitutional, then what?

ETA: btw, I agree with pretty much everything you just posted there.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The states have the police power. There are few federal i.e. congressional exceptions. Which of those exceptions do you allude to?

I'm gonna have to ask you the same question I'm asking Rabbi:

Do we have a right to live?

A self evident philosophical thought process. Not Constitutional in nature. Consistent with John Locke and the Laws of Nature. The very definition of true conservatism aka classical liberalism. Not to be confused with modern liberalism.

We have the unconditional right to life. No man, government, group, or mob may place a condition on my right to live unless that condition preserves my right to live free from those who would force it from me and only free from those who would force it from me. I have no right to live at the forced expense of another. To live at the forced expense of another is to place a condition on the life of another that does not apply to me. To place a forced condition on the life of another for my benefit is to make him my servant by force. To make him my servant by force is to make him my slave. Any time a policy forces money (earned property) from one man/class/group to another is to make them a slave for the period it took them to earn that money. Any time a policy subsidizes a private industry at the expense of another is to make the taxpayer a temporary slave to the industry for the duration of that time it took to earn that money. Ergo, no man or industry that does not pay taxes has the moral authority to vote. To give them the right to vote is to give them the right to plunder those who pay for the services that only they receive and do not contribute to. To give them the right to vote is to allow them to place conditions on the lives of others for their benefit. To give them the right to vote is to corrupt the political process via incentivizing politicians to pander to special groups as opposed to the rights of the whole. This is not consistent with the "general welfare" but only the "specific welfare" at the expense of "general welfare."

John Locke: "To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man."

 

[Publius1787]

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.

The Murbury vs Madison decision had nothing to do with interstate commerse.

Actually, it does to a certain extent with the limiting principle theory on the enumerated powers to include the commerce clause.

 

[Vidi]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The states have the police power. There are few federal i.e. congressional exceptions. Which of those exceptions do you allude to?

I'm gonna have to ask you the same question I'm asking Rabbi:

Do we have a right to live?

A self evident philosophical thought process. Not Constitutional in nature. Consistent with John Locke and the Laws of Nature. The very definition of true conservatism aka classical liberalism. Not to be confused with modern liberalism.

We have the unconditional right to life. No man, government, group, or mob may place a condition on my right to live unless that condition preserves my right to live free from those who would force it from me and only free from those who would force it from me. I have no right to live at the forced expense of another. To live at the forced expense of another is to place a condition on the life of another that does not apply to me. To place a forced condition on the life of another for my benefit is to make him my servant by force. To make him my servant by force is to make him my slave. Any time a policy forces money (earned property) from one man/class/group to another is to make them a slave for the period it took them to earn that money. Any time a policy subsidizes a private industry at the expense of another is to make the taxpayer a temporary slave to the industry for the duration of that time it took to earn that money. Ergo, no man or industry that does not pay taxes has the moral authority to vote. To give them the right to vote is to give them the right to plunder those who pay for the services that only they receive and do not contribute to. To give them the right to vote is to allow them to place conditions on the lives of others for their benefit. To give them the right to vote is to corrupt the political process via incentivizing politicians to pander to special groups as opposed to the rights of the whole. This is not consistent with the "general welfare" but only the "specific welfare" at the expense of "general welfare."

John Locke: "To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man."

And if the condition of a persons right to life were his or her ability to pay?

As you said," No man, government, group, or mob may place a condition on my right to live unless that condition preserves my right to live free from those who would force it from me and only free from those who would force it from me."

 

[Publius1787]

I'm gonna have to ask you the same question I'm asking Rabbi:

Do we have a right to live?

A self evident philosophical thought process. Not Constitutional in nature. Consistent with John Locke and the Laws of Nature. The very definition of true conservatism aka classical liberalism. Not to be confused with modern liberalism.

We have the unconditional right to life. No man, government, group, or mob may place a condition on my right to live unless that condition preserves my right to live free from those who would force it from me and only free from those who would force it from me. I have no right to live at the forced expense of another. To live at the forced expense of another is to place a condition on the life of another that does not apply to me. To place a forced condition on the life of another for my benefit is to make him my servant by force. To make him my servant by force is to make him my slave. Any time a policy forces money (earned property) from one man/class/group to another is to make them a slave for the period it took them to earn that money. Any time a policy subsidizes a private industry at the expense of another is to make the taxpayer a temporary slave to the industry for the duration of that time it took to earn that money. Ergo, no man or industry that does not pay taxes has the moral authority to vote. To give them the right to vote is to give them the right to plunder those who pay for the services that only they receive and do not contribute to. To give them the right to vote is to allow them to place conditions on the lives of others for their benefit. To give them the right to vote is to corrupt the political process via incentivizing politicians to pander to special groups as opposed to the rights of the whole. This is not consistent with the "general welfare" but only the "specific welfare" at the expense of "general welfare."

John Locke: "To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man."

And if the condition of my right to live be a premium paid to a corporation?

Your reply implies that you did not read the post in question. Your inquiry was certainly addressed. However, I think it funny for anyone to advocate one form of servitude against the other which is also implied. However, to put someone in a state of slavery is to put them in a state of war. You really should read John Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government;” Specifically the Second Treatise. More Specifically Chapters II, III, & IV of the Second Treatise. Oh, and if you notice a few phrases here and there that are similar to the Declaration of Independence it would do you well to understand that it’s not a coincidence. *edit* I see what your asking now. I have replied below.

 

[oreo]

The burden of forcing people to buy something under government decree is grounds enough. Penalizing them for not buying is further injury.

Well they're now trying to get around that by switching words from "penalizing" to "taxing"

 

[oreo]

That's really funny considering:

How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate

Hypocritical moral equivocation has nothing to do with constitutionality and is therefore a moot point for anyone who brings it to the discussion. At least that’s what the Obama Administration is arguing about the penalty, uh ... mandate, …… uh ...... "tax." That’s right, it’s a tax! It wasn’t yesterday but it is today! Remember that he hasn't raised taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year. In fact, he’s the first president to install a tax on doing nothing that applies exclusively to the middle class. Or is it a penalty ...... or a mandate ........ ?

I don't agree. If you're employed and receive Health Insurance though your employer, you've already purchased and therefore the mandate forces nothing on you. ( you being used in the general sense, not specifically you )

That being said however, the mandate does place an incredible burden in the cracks, like the midde class self employed.

The 80-85% payout is, in theory, supposed to drive costs down ( my wife's company is already planning a premium decrease for next year because of it ) but in MOST cases, in the best case scenario, that payout will take three to five years to force the majority of premiums down, which leaves several years where it would be cheaper for some to simply pay the fine.

My medical insurance premiums have gone through the roof-since Obamacare passed and am-now up to $500.00 per month for myself--for a crappy policy. I pay an individual rate--and do not get any breaks for being a small business owner.

 

[Publius1787]

I'm gonna have to ask you the same question I'm asking Rabbi:

Do we have a right to live?

A self evident philosophical thought process. Not Constitutional in nature. Consistent with John Locke and the Laws of Nature. The very definition of true conservatism aka classical liberalism. Not to be confused with modern liberalism.

We have the unconditional right to life. No man, government, group, or mob may place a condition on my right to live unless that condition preserves my right to live free from those who would force it from me and only free from those who would force it from me. I have no right to live at the forced expense of another. To live at the forced expense of another is to place a condition on the life of another that does not apply to me. To place a forced condition on the life of another for my benefit is to make him my servant by force. To make him my servant by force is to make him my slave. Any time a policy forces money (earned property) from one man/class/group to another is to make them a slave for the period it took them to earn that money. Any time a policy subsidizes a private industry at the expense of another is to make the taxpayer a temporary slave to the industry for the duration of that time it took to earn that money. Ergo, no man or industry that does not pay taxes has the moral authority to vote. To give them the right to vote is to give them the right to plunder those who pay for the services that only they receive and do not contribute to. To give them the right to vote is to allow them to place conditions on the lives of others for their benefit. To give them the right to vote is to corrupt the political process via incentivizing politicians to pander to special groups as opposed to the rights of the whole. This is not consistent with the "general welfare" but only the "specific welfare" at the expense of "general welfare."

John Locke: "To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man."

And if the condition of a persons right to life were his or her ability to pay?

As you said," No man, government, group, or mob may place a condition on my right to live unless that condition preserves my right to live free from those who would force it from me and only free from those who would force it from me."

What you’re really telling me is that it is ok to place conditions on another man’s life so as long as you or society deems it a necessary fact that you need another’s rights more than them at the current time. Ergo we have no right to refuse to serve you and your interests. Moreover, your current state of health gives you the right to use force to acquire the funds you need to stay alive from an ailment that is no fault of the person you are taking from. At the moment of sickness your life is worth more than mine. In other words, our unalienable, irrefutable, undeniable, self-evident, individual rights are no longer applicable once you fail to pay for your healthcare.

It is not my job to ensure that you stay healthy. If it were my job it would also then be my duty to make sure that you are eating and eating healthy, running, living in a safe environment, staying away from wild women, driving safely, not smoking/drinking, etc. etc. etc. …. I am not your personal slave by virtue of your sickness. It’s life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. Not your life at the expense of my liberty and pursuits in order to GUARENTEE your happiness via a special privilege at my expense. The fact that you are sick does not mean that your right to life has been infringed on by another. Just because you failed in exercising your rights and liberties in a manner that fulfilled your pursuit of happiness does not grant you license or entitlement to take from mine. I do not lose my rights and liberties by virtue of your misfortune and failure to acquire more fruits for your labor.

However, if you have the right to force me to pay for your healthcare do I have the right to charge you as an enemy of the state and lable you a threat to the "general welfare" of society for eating unhealthy, not exercising, smoking, drinking, living next to a dump, screwing wild women, sunbathing, driving on the highway when you could do so on a side road, driving a car instead of a safer truck etc. etc. etc… … …? Please don't tell me that you want it one way and not the other. Isn't amazing how we can start with a single policy and end up with socialism when we try to cure all of the obvious market failures that these progressive policies bring? Stop me if this sounds familiar in any way to what’s been creeping over the past three years.

I humbly ask that you to watch these two videos in their entirety .




Was all of that overkill or did it effectively show the fallacy and moral hazard of modern liberal reasoning?









.

 

[Vidi]

You're right. It's not your responsibility to look after my health. My questions have not been about YOUR responsibility. I have not asked you to pledge your life, fortune or sacred honor to me, nor would I.


But neither is it my right to remove from you
the means by which you can survive. I cannot decide that your life is less valuable than mine and therefore, remove your right to life from you. That right is, as Jefferson said, unalienable. And he listed it first. In the first document of our country, the document that birthed our nation, the first right given to men, all men, by their Creator, is Life.

Without Life, there can be no Liberty.

But you're wrong. I've told you nothing. I've simply asked questions to illicit a response, gauge your thoughts on the subject and illustrate a point.

The real question, especially based on your answers so far, is it acceptable to trade one oppression for another?

We have been left with an either or proposition. Because the refusal to purchase their product means death. Either the oppression of the state, though the mandate, or the oppression of the corporation, through denial of service. A lesser of two evils choice is no choice at all.

So what is a third option that can allow for life and liberty to be preserved? Is there one?

You see, as I said, all my questions have been to illustrate a singular point, that our rights are being diminished in either case.

So who do I choose to protect my rights? A government elected by the people? Or a corporate board of directors that I cannot vote out? If there is no third option, I choose the one that gives the people the power to vote out those who would oppress us.

And when you advocate our purchasing power as our voting rights, the words of your namesake:

“Debt is the slavery of the free” - Publilius Syrus

 

[MeBelle]

Excellent debate people. Keep it going!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The burden of forcing people to buy something under government decree is grounds enough. Penalizing them for not buying is further injury.

Well they're now trying to get around that by switching words from "penalizing" to "taxing"

I think one of the Justices said it was a tax

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Well? Are you a supporter of the mandate?

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Government doesnt have moral obligations.
Government is there to make and enforce laws. If someone is denied due process than there is a mechanism for such.
Is there a point you are trying to make here?

 

[The Rabbi]

You're right. It's not your responsibility to look after my health. My questions have not been about YOUR responsibility. I have not asked you to pledge your life, fortune or sacred honor to me, nor would I.


But neither is it my right to remove from me the means by which you can survive. I cannot decide that your life is less valuable than mine and therefore, remove your right to life from you. That right is, as Jefferson said, unalienable. And he listed it first. In the first document of our country, the document that birthed our nation, the first right given to men, all men, by their Creator, is Life.

Without Life, there can be no Liberty.

But you're wrong. I've told you nothing. I've simply asked questions to illicit a response, gauge your thoughts on the subject and illustrate a point.

The real question, especially based on your answers so far, is it acceptable to trade one oppression for another?

We have been left with an either or proposition. Because the refusal to purchase their product means death. Either the oppression of the state, though the mandate, or the oppression of the corporation, through denial of service. A lesser of two evils choice is no choice at all.

No, that is a fallacy. That argument is unsound. Plenty of people refuse to puchase health insurance and walk around the streets every day. Ergo whatever you want to base on that premise is wrong.

 

[Vidi]

You're right. It's not your responsibility to look after my health. My questions have not been about YOUR responsibility. I have not asked you to pledge your life, fortune or sacred honor to me, nor would I.


But neither is it my right to remove from me the means by which you can survive. I cannot decide that your life is less valuable than mine and therefore, remove your right to life from you. That right is, as Jefferson said, unalienable. And he listed it first. In the first document of our country, the document that birthed our nation, the first right given to men, all men, by their Creator, is Life.

Without Life, there can be no Liberty.

But you're wrong. I've told you nothing. I've simply asked questions to illicit a response, gauge your thoughts on the subject and illustrate a point.

The real question, especially based on your answers so far, is it acceptable to trade one oppression for another?

We have been left with an either or proposition. Because the refusal to purchase their product means death. Either the oppression of the state, though the mandate, or the oppression of the corporation, through denial of service. A lesser of two evils choice is no choice at all.

No, that is a fallacy. That argument is unsound. Plenty of people refuse to puchase health insurance and walk around the streets every day. Ergo whatever you want to base on that premise is wrong.

You didn't present an argument. You just said , " Nuh uh" and I mentioned nothing about people refusing to buy anything, ergo you missed the point