‘Government-Run’ Nonsense and other dubious right wing lies shot down

[dblack]

I already have government health insurance as a federal employee, it really doesn't bother me personally, I prefer single payer because its fiscally less expensive and keeps doctors from ripping people off.

That avoids the question. You said you're opposed to the mandate. Will you be supporting the efforts to repeal it?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I already have government health insurance as a federal employee, it really doesn't bother me personally, I prefer single payer because its fiscally less expensive and keeps doctors from ripping people off.

That avoids the question. You said you're opposed to the mandate. Will you be supporting the efforts to repeal it?

No. I don't like the penalties part of the law.

 

[hortysir]

Can you drive a car without car insurance? No, your BS is refuted and yes, universal health care was the idea of the Republicans first retard, so your leftist rhetorical BS doesn't fly here, pull your head out of your rectum.

Can my grandchild be BORN without being required to purchase health insurance by the time she's 25?


For someone that hates insurance companies so much and how much money they make you sure want them to gain as much business as possible, huh?


Oh....That's right!!
You'd rather the government get that money from you!!


idiot

I don't hate insurance companies making so much money you jackass, I specifically said I disagree with them passing their costs on to the consumer by raising premiums and also denying care to people, that's ripping people off.

So you agree with my other 2 points.


Got it.

 

[dblack]

I already have government health insurance as a federal employee, it really doesn't bother me personally, I prefer single payer because its fiscally less expensive and keeps doctors from ripping people off.

That avoids the question. You said you're opposed to the mandate. Will you be supporting the efforts to repeal it?

No. I don't like the penalties part of the law.

No? As in you won't be supporting repeal? Or No, as in you won't support the mandate?

 

[daveman]

One moron applauding another. How amusing.

The moron is you because technically you are receiving "socialized medicine" or something very, very akin to it yet you're rallying against it heavily for everyone else.

That's been explained before. To you. Specifically.

Apparently, you were too stupid to get it then. I have no confidence your level of intelligence has increased since then.

I earned my benefits by performing a service to the nation. You want people to receive benefits without earning them.

 

[daveman]

I agree with Health Care for all---just not mandated. If the gov forces everyone to buy Health Care where will it end. A huge slippery slope. Today Health care, tomorrow Firestone Tires.

However, I don't think the Sct. are clear headed people. They are the court that said Corporations are People? Look how that has gone over in the country. People are outraged.

What's the difference between corporations, groups of people organized for a common purpose, donating to political campaigns; and unions, groups of people organized for a common purpose, donating to political campaigns?

I can't think of one. The left breathlessly assures me there is one, but can't seem to articulate it.

Without the mandated portion of the bill---the entire bill fall apart. There is other way to pay for it unless healthy people pay for sick people's care. But when people get sick they should get care and not be allowed to die just cause they can't afford it.

As a country we should take care of the sick. It is the morally right thing to do. On the other hand, we shouldn't be forced to purchase a product we don't need or want.

You can't legislate morality.

And that is exactly what extremist right wingers attempt to do.

You just keep ignoring when leftists try to do it.

Sorry...they haven't tried, they've succeeded.

 

[daveman]

There is no proof that universal healthcare makes people less likely to want to go into the medical field, these doctors charge sky high prices well above market value. I already explained that, doctors can charge whatever prices they want now, that's why the cost of health care in the US is more than any other country, even higher than in country that have universal healthcare. Enough with your hypothetical strawman argument.

The cap on reimbursement is to keep health insurance companies from passing on their losses and operating costs onto the consumers.

So all you have is wishful thinking.

Oh, and thanks for the obligatory leftist "I've decided they make too much money" class envy bullshit.

WTH are you talking about monkey? Its a well known fact that health insurance companies do pass on their operating costs to consumers by raising premiums and yes doctors in the United States charge whatever prices they want. If you want to be a damn fool and let companies get richer off of you via them passing on operating costs go right the hell on ahead but don't give me that class envy BS, you right wing jackasses who aren't rich look like retards parroting the class envy rhetoric of the rich.

You really are a stupid little man.

 

[daveman]

One again jackass...

Weren't you bitching about personal attacks earlier?


The Constitution does not give the Federal government the power to compel the purchase of a product. If you believe it does, point out the article.

Don't give me trolling right wing talking points and ad-hominems against leftists, that's childish. The fact remains that Obama's health care law is closely modeled after and even copied from a plan the GOPtards wanted, are the GOPtards leftists too?

It's been explained to you over and over. You're either too dumb to get it or too star-struck by the Obamessiah to see it. And since you bitterly cling to your ignorance, I don't believe I'll waste any more time trying to correct your dumbassery.

Can you drive a car without car insurance? No, your BS is refuted and yes, universal health care was the idea of the Republicans first retard, so your leftist rhetorical BS doesn't fly here, pull your head out of your rectum.

Not that old canard again.

The Federal government doesn't require you to buy car insurance, and you don't have to drive a car on public highways anyhow.

But you just keep pretending you have a point. It's funny.

 

[Dragon]

You are waaaaaaaaay out of your lane son

SCOTUS is an appellate court

The lower court found what you assert

then SCOTUS HELD it is not

No. You're just simply, factually wrong. The SCOTUS was not quoting language in that passage, it was presenting its own.

Here's a bit more on the case:

United States v. Butler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Although it struck down the Act, the Court dealt positively with taxation and the expenditure of funds to advance the general welfare as specified in Article 1 § 8 of the Constitution. The Court stated that the issue “presents the great and the controlling question in the case.” After comparing expansive vs. restrictive interpretations of the Spending Clause, the Court adopted the philosophy that:

"The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."

And more: United States v. Butler

In fact, contrary to what you suggest, the Supreme Court did NOT overturn the lower court's ruling, it UPHELD it. The court of appeals had ruled the AAA unconstitutional, and it was the government that appealed to the SCOTUS.

Despite the broad ruling on the interpretation of I:8:1, the Court held the AAA to be unconstitutional because this power to tax and spend, although very broad, is not unlimited. It does not allow Congress to use taxing and spending to regulate matters that Congress is not otherwise authorized to regulate.

This precedent suggests that the individual mandate of the ACA may be unconstitutional, too, because it also attempts to use a tax to enforce a regulation that Congress is not otherwise authorized to impose.

However, there is no such problem with Medicare, and would be none if Medicare were expanded into a universal single-payer system, which is in my opinion what should have been done rather than the ghastly mess that is the ACA.

 

[OODA_Loop]

you might tell chicago school of law to teach from Wiki

United States v. Butler | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Term:
1901-1939
1935

Location: Congress

Facts of the Case


As part of the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act, Congress implemented a processing tax on agricultural commodities, from which funds would be redistributed to farmers who promised to reduce their acreage. The Act intended to solve the crisis in agricultural commodity prices which was causing many farmers to go under.

Question


Did Congress exceed its constitutional taxing and spending powers with the Act?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Butler, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: US Const Amend 10; Agricultural Adjustment Act

The Court found the Act unconstitutional because it attempted to regulate and control agricultural production, an arena reserved to the states. Even though Congress does have the power to tax and appropriate funds, argued Justice Roberts, in this case those activities were "but means to an unconstitutional end," and violated the Tenth Amendment.

the agricultural program struck down in Butler was reenacted by Congress under the commerce power and upheld in Mulford v. Smith (1939) and Wickard v. Filburn (1942).

 

[OODA_Loop]

And more: United States v. Butler

In fact, contrary to what you suggest, the Supreme Court did NOT overturn the lower court's ruling, it UPHELD it.

from your link johnny cockring

United States v. Butler
297 U.S. 1 (1936)
Author: Joe

Facts: Congress enacted the Agricultural Adjustment Act in the New Deal era to stabilize farm prices. Secretary of Agriculture was given to power to make contracts with farmers to reduce their productive acreage and in return the farmers received benefit payments. In order to pay for this program, Congress enacted processing tax on domestic processing of certain commodities.

Procedure: Lower court ruled this act to be unconstitutional.

Issue: Can the taxing power of the Congress be used to make payments in a field that is reserved for the states?

Holding: No

Rule: Article I § 8: Congress has power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the defense and general welfare of the United States.

Rationale: In Child Labor Tax Case, it was held that Congress cannot lay tax to regulate in a area reserved for the states. Likewise, taxing power cannot be employed to raise the money necessary to purchase a compliance which the Congress is powerless to command. The provisions of the program are not voluntary, as the Government argues them to be. The farmer is either given the choice of accepting the program or to suffer financial ruin. This is economic coercion. Affirmed.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The lead paragraph from your wiki......

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the processing taxes instituted under the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act were unconstitutional. Justice Owen Roberts argued that the tax was "but a means to an unconstitutional end" that violated the Tenth Amendment.

did you bong out this fine Thanksgiving morning ?

 

[Dragon]

None of that contradicts what I said above. You are not only failing to demonstrate your position, you are failing to even TRY to answer mine.

1) The lower court had ruled the AAA unconstitutional.
2) The Supreme Court upheld that ruling.
3) The Court nonetheless interpreted the taxing and spending power broadly, saying that it is a separate enumerated power and not subordinate to the other enumerated powers.
4) The reason why the AAA was unconstitutional nonetheless is because the tax and spend power does not allow the government to implement a regulation it is not otherwise authorized to impose.

That the government put forth a somewhat similar law later based on the regulation of commerce clause is immaterial. The interpretation of the tax and spend clause remains unaffected by that. It was ruled to be a broad power not dependent on the other enumerated powers. That ruling has never been reversed, and remains the law of the land.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[Listening]

Ah yes, well that becomes the dilema for myself and other conservatives.

I would love to have a very clean and straightforward argument for calling healthcare unconsititional.

However, that term is somewhat elusive.

Based on the historical bastardization of the constituion by the dems, SCOTUS, and GOP (yes GOP), it is hard to make a really clean argument. At the same time, there is enough material to support our position that it can't be categorically ignored.

What is missing in today's GOP and conservative platorms is not the need to "return" things to the way they used to be, but instead to take them to the place we want them to be (after all, if it is a living breathing document....why can't we push states powers regardless of history ?).

When the RNC puts this in their platform, I'll take home. Look now and you won't find it (or I could not find it). And when it is eleveated in the eyes of the country, then the postition becomes clear as does the path to finding solutions for issues like health care....at the state level.

For now....we'll just repeat this same conversation over and over and over again.

 

[Listening]

I don't hate insurance companies making so much money you jackass, I specifically said I disagree with them passing their costs on to the consumer by raising premiums and also denying care to people, that's ripping people off.

In Kansas, we don't have an energy commissioner or an oil and gas commissioner. But we do have an insurance commissioner. I can't tell you exactly what their function is (and it is something I should find out). But I wonder how much these companies can do this because there is no one to enter the market to compete against them because of the barriers of red tape.

I fully agree it is bogus for someone to pay into a policy for ten years, require treatment and be dropped.

 

[abouadma]

are you 65 and getting on medicare? if so you can not afford not to visit
New Jersey Original Medicare, Medicare Supplements Plans And Medicare Advantage Comparison and information[/url]
lot of useful information.