What will we be "mandated" to buy next?

[dblack]

Well, I can understand why the Founding Fathers were thinking that way 200 years ago, when democracy was still at experimental stage. But by now it is pretty obvious that one does not need protection from democracy, that it is democracy that needs protection.

Re: the bolded portion - why and how is that obvious?

minorities have their rights recognized only when the majority is willing to do so ...

I couldn't disagree more emphatically. This kind of disregard for basic human rights is disgusting. The majority doesn't "own" everyone else.

 

[Richard-H]

Any thoughts on that?

Since the Fed can now force us to buy hc ins, there's no end of things that can be mandated, for our own good.

I'm thinking life ins. Those evul grave diggers demand thousands of dollars just to dig a hole and put your loved one in it.

Forcing everone to get it, and giving it free to the poor will lower the cost of premiums and make certain no one ever has to pony up for any of the costs of dying.

plus all those evul life insurance companies = about $14 trillion dollar industry, so we should put more government regs on them.



This is a sad sad day for freedom.

I would gladly support a law mandating that all wingnuts buy and use birth control!

 

[tererun]

hopefully muzzles for the right. I am up for kicking in a few dollars to muzzle the right who thinks that Mitt is actually going to get rid of the only thing that pays for all the other benefits of Obama care that he claims he agrees with.

 

[ilia25]

Well, I can understand why the Founding Fathers were thinking that way 200 years ago, when democracy was still at experimental stage. But by now it is pretty obvious that one does not need protection from democracy, that it is democracy that needs protection.

Re: the bolded portion - why and how is that obvious?

Well, how many people were harmed because they were living in a democratic state?

minorities have their rights recognized only when the majority is willing to do so ...

I couldn't disagree more emphatically. This kind of disregard for basic human rights is disgusting. The majority doesn't "own" everyone else.

Yes, it does. And I just as disgusted as anyone when majority disregards some people's rights. But when it does, no constitution can fix that. Democracy, however, makes society better over time, improving how the minorities are treated.

 

[ilia25]

So where do you want most of the power vested?

Voters elect parliament -> parlament appoints the government, which then is accountable to the parliament. Britain or Canada are the closest examples. Government more often than not is supported by a stable majority in the parliament. Otherwise Government has to build a majority every time it needs a vote. If it fails, the deadlock is solved by new elections. This makes a tug of war between the executive and legislative branch impossible.

The Founding Fathers were afraid that the parliament can easily usurp all the power, but such things never happen in practice. If only because hundreds of MPs will never agree on how to share that power between themselves.

"That government is best which governs least."
-- Thomas Paine

That is a pretty silly maxima, because it simply means that it is better to abolish the government altogether.

The more roadblocks to government power, the better.

Why build "roadblocks" if the government is serving us? Instead of making the government dysfunctional, we should make it accountable to the people.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So we are not going to be forced to buy ins?

did I miss that part? or are we just going to be taxed for not having ins?


it's the fucking same thing. Using semantics and calling something a tax is just a lie.

No.. it's not the same thing.

Oh yes it is. Try telling that to the IRS when they come knocking on your door. Keep up not buying HC and you will end up behind their door. The ones with medal bars.

There are NO criminal penalties in the ACA.

page 4 of the decision: "Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS."


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

 

[bripat9643]

Well I didn't like funding useless wars.. yet we didn't see so many complaints for 8+ years...

Are all libturds complete imbeciles?

Just a rhetorical question.

 

[bripat9643]

No.. it's not the same thing.

Yes it is the same thing, you fucking dolt.

Refusing to admit what any brain damaged moron can easily understand isn't a convincing argument.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, it does. And I just as disgusted as anyone when majority disregards some people's rights. But when it does, no constitution can fix that. Democracy, however, makes society better over time, improving how the minorities are treated.

Millions and millions. I'm harmed every time I get my paycheck. I'm harmed to the tune of about $40,000 every year.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Any thoughts on that?

Since the Fed can now force us to buy hc ins, there's no end of things that can be mandated, for our own good.

I'm thinking life ins. Those evul grave diggers demand thousands of dollars just to dig a hole and put your loved one in it.

Forcing everone to get it, and giving it free to the poor will lower the cost of premiums and make certain no one ever has to pony up for any of the costs of dying.

plus all those evul life insurance companies = about $14 trillion dollar industry, so we should put more government regs on them.




This is a sad sad day for freedom.

Solar panels wind mills for the house new tinted windows for the house, specific R rated insulation
Lifestyle's they might deem risky
Sugared sodas
Pork
Guns
Clothing apparel
The list goes on and on.

 

[bripat9643]

Why build "roadblocks" if the government is serving us? Instead of making the government dysfunctional, we should make it accountable to the people.

That's certainly how a servile bootlicking statist would look at it.

However, having no government would be superior to the government we have now.

 

[Flopper]

Any thoughts on that?

Since the Fed can now force us to buy hc ins, there's no end of things that can be mandated, for our own good.

I'm thinking life ins. Those evul grave diggers demand thousands of dollars just to dig a hole and put your loved one in it.

Forcing everone to get it, and giving it free to the poor will lower the cost of premiums and make certain no one ever has to pony up for any of the costs of dying.

plus all those evul life insurance companies = about $14 trillion dollar industry, so we should put more government regs on them.



This is a sad sad day for freedom.

No they can't make you buy, but they can tax you more if you don't.

 

[RightWingFerret]

if you ever sit down, or have to sit when you are driving, you will be required to buy 3 tubes of preparation H a week. and if you dont. The A.S.S. will audit you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

if you ever sit down, or have to sit when you are driving, you will be required to buy 3 tubes of preparation H a week. and if you dont. The A.S.S. will audit you.

They will have job security

 

[bripat9643]

No.. it's not the same thing.

Oh yes it is. Try telling that to the IRS when they come knocking on your door. Keep up not buying HC and you will end up behind their door. The ones with medal bars.

There are NO criminal penalties in the ACA.

And you think that means no force is being used? Do you think tax audits are voluntary? Is having eveything you own confiscated by the IRS "voluntary?"

What an imbecile.

page 4 of the decision: "Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS."

ROFL! "No legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS?"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, tax liens, wage garnishment and prison aren't "legal consequences."

Only a true moron would swallow that circumlocution.

 

[bripat9643]

No they can't make you buy, but they can tax you more if you don't.

According to your definition of the term, handing over all your money to a mugger is "voluntary" because you can "choose" to take a bullet instead.

 

[RightWingFerret]

an any typical staunch obama supporter who has regular sex with elmo dolls will be required to buy those 36 pack of wal-mart condoms.

 

[dblack]

No they can't make you buy, but they can tax you more if you don't.

According to your definition of term, handing over all your money to a mugger is "voluntary" because you can choose to take a bullet if you "choose" not to.

Yeah... the mental gymnastics of those trying to say the mandate doesn't force us to do anything is rather embarrassing. All government authority is derived from the same paradigm: Do what you're told, or suffer a penalty. If you refuse the penalty you will be arrested. If you refuse arrest you will be shot.

 

[dblack]

ROFL! "No legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS?"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, tax liens, wage garnishment and prison aren't "legal consequences."

Only a true moron would swallow that circumlocution.

Perhaps the same morons who believed that the mandate was a penalty and not a tax - just because it says so in the bill.

Suckers~~

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No they can't make you buy, but they can tax you more if you don't.

According to your definition of term, handing over all your money to a mugger is "voluntary" because you can "choose" to take a bullet instead.

Except your fellow countrymen are not muggers. We the people elected the Congress that passed the ACA.