Page 120 of 122 FirstFirst ... 2070110118119120121122 LastLast
Results 1,191 to 1,200 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #1191
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    You helped solve a problem at Pittsburgh Steel??
    Yes. It involved networked printers all over the many facilities.

    Pray tell . . . The problem you had with union work is very simple: give managment an inch and they'll take a mile: warehouse unions wil not let any heavy driver cross a certain line from the dock to check his freight before it's brought to him. (of course, once tehy get to know you, you acn do what you want: if you're a Teamster).
    I had one lacky follow me around to make sure I did not lift up a printer to check its model and serial number. Only a union thug thinks this is a good idea.

    Steelworkers are pro socialist??? Anti American??? Check out all those American flags that fly from steel superstructures downtown and on bridges! That's how you tell a union job; you know that don't you . . .
    I am certain the union members who have no choice are not the problem. If they booted the unions they would likely have a far better work experience.

    (chuckle)

    Just an amazing hyperbolic and paranoid and jealous opinion that you have.
    Please keep the chuckle. So far it iss the only part of your posts I actually like.

  2. #1192
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Well, this thread has gone rather far afield from the topic. Let's get it back on track by reviewing a new editorial by an influential, conservative law professor stating why the mandate should be upheld:

    A Conservative Law Professor on the Obvious Constitutionality of Obamacare

    Henry Paul Monaghan
    April 16, 2012

    The Constitution of the United States creates a national government of enumerated and therefore limited powers. Accordingly, troubled members of the Court should be applauded for their efforts to search for the limits to any principle advanced to uphold the health care mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), not made the target of strident and caustic criticism. The Court is a great institution, and its members don’t deserve such abuse.

    That should be said, and I want to say it as clearly as I can. Nonetheless, I submit that sustaining the mandate would not give rise to the justices’ fears of boundless federal authority.

    The individual health mandate surely passes constitutional muster under settled judicial principles. The Constitution’s Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority “to regulate commerce ... among the several States.” The Court's precedents establish without question that Congress may regulate intrastate economic activities that Congress (not the Court) reasonably concludes have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The existence of such congressional authority is especially clear when the challenged provision itself is part of a comprehensive legislative scheme that regulates interstate commerce.

    Moreover, the market for health care is distinctive (if not entirely unique) in several key respects. Virtually all of us will need and obtain health care at some point, but we often cannot predict when or in what ways we will need it. And for the vast majority of us, direct payment for the health care services we obtain would be prohibitively expensive. Yet not obtaining needed medical care can be the difference between life and death.

    These features help explain why, unlike many other markets, insurance is the overwhelmingly dominant means of payment in the health care market. They also explain why Congress has required that individuals be given emergency care without regard to their ability to pay. As a result, and again unlike other markets, uninsured individuals who are unable to pay directly for needed medical services necessarily shift the cost of those services to others—to health care providers, the government, individuals with insurance, and taxpayers.

    In that way, Congress is not creating a market which it then seeks to regulate. The insurance-based structure of the health care market is already firmly in place. That is why it was well within Congress's discretion to design legislation to operate within, and to address problems posed by, this vast market.

    More: Henry Paul Monaghan: A Conservative Law Professor On The Obvious Constitutionality Of Obamacare | The New Republic
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  3. #1193
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    And another....

    Posted at 1:12 PM ET, 02/ 2/2011

    Conservative legal scholar: We already regulate inactivity

    By Greg
    Sargent


    In an interview with me just now, a conservative law professor made an
    interesting case for the individual mandate: In multiple cases, he said, the
    federal government has already regulated "inactivity," and it has passed
    muster with the Constitution.

    The cases this professor cited: Jury duty, and the draft.

    New York University law professor Rick Hills describes himself as a
    "registered Republican and outspoken conservative," but he maintains that the
    primary argument conservatives use against the mandate -- that it's
    unconstitutional to regulate economic inactivity by forcing people to buy
    insurance, as Judge Vinson ruled -- is bunk.

    Hills frames the question this way: If the federal government can't tell
    people they don't have the right to refuse to buy insurance, then why was it
    okay for the federal government to regulate people's "pacifism," i.e., their
    refusal to fight in wars? Why is it okay for the government to regulate people's
    refusal to serve on juries?

    "If you can regulate inaction to raise juries, and you can regulate inaction
    to raise an army, then why isn't there equally an implied power to conscript
    people to buy insurance, to serve the goal of regulating the interstate
    insurance market?" Hill asks.

    The draft was held up as constitutional by the Supreme Court, but not under
    the "commerce clause" or the "necessary and proper clause," which are being used
    to defend the individual mandate. But Hills said the larger point stands:
    Congress has the power to ban inaction.

    "If the draft is constitutional, it's constitutional to ban inaction," he
    said. "Congress can ban inaction, assuming that it's necessary and proper to
    regulate interstate commerce."


    The Plum Line - Conservative legal scholar: We already regulate inactivity
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  4. #1194
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    I read this several times and it did not make sense to me. Then I thought that maybe you had used a wrong word. I changed the word and it began to make sense to me: "one party has been effective in using workers while seemingly ignoring not only their responsibility..."

    I agree that the democratic party has figured out how to use workers as well as to divide everyone into pretty little groups, some black who when dead look like the son the president never had; some unmarried women; some working women; some stay-at-home-moms, some illegal aliens; some gay, lesbian and in-betweens; some rich millionaires and billionaires, meaning anyone who earns 250K per year; some secretaries (as in Buffet's and Obama's) who pay a greater tax rate than their bosses.

    And even one who must be demonized by all of the others, the evil white Christian man.

    Thank you for that.
    The poor, poor, white Christian male. They are so picked on. You're so silly.

    No, your editing was false, but you know that. It's just easier for you to play that game instead of addressing the issue.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #1195
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Imagine how well of we will be when everyone has a government job.
    Never suggested that was what we needed. Just want you to realized that firing people means less jobs, and that the ONLY way government can do much of anythign about unemployment is to hire people. I'm asking for logic thought here.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #1196
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:59 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    24,754

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Yes. It involved networked printers all over the many facilities.
    I think we've had this conversation on another forum . . . You worked for a firm that was subcontracted to troubleshoot a problem. You have a very bad attitude toward union employment to begin with, and that kind of a projection comes through in conversation, which means you were being rude, so those steel workers saw you coming.


    I had one lacky follow me around to make sure I did not lift up a printer to check its model and serial number. Only a union thug thinks this is a good idea.
    Uh, no. You were assigned a guy to help with the physical part of the work, and my original statement about protecting work still stands as well. You are really exagerating this story of yours to feed your prejudice and create misinformed rumor.


    I am certain the union members who have no choice are not the problem. If they booted the unions they would likely have a far better work experience.
    Labor unions, like any other organizations are made of many types of people that have many types of ideas on an across the board subject matter. Unions are not led by one specific political outlook: I have met many union people who "hate Obama" etc, so again, your assertion is empty and without any merit. And of course you end this thought too with an unsubstantiated opinion that adds up to zero.

    Labor unions are only instituted in companies that create such draconinan mangement that employees collect in order to protect themselves. Most of the heavy industries began organizing in the 19th century: the Philidelphia shoe cobblers orgainzed in 1790, so labor unions are as American as apple pie and founded on the ideal of the ideal of the Us Constitution, thus outfits like the Steel Workers union will just brush your comments away like dust on a table.


    Please keep the chuckle. So far it iss the only part of your posts I actually like.
    Opinions like yours are just so uninformed as to be funny; and immature actually: devoid of any substanative experience or cognitive ability with a subject, thus the (chuckle); so I'm glad you like that: it says a lot.
    Last edited by jet57; 04-17-12 at 04:00 PM.
    “The people do no want virtue; but they are the dupes of pretended patriots” : Elbridge Gerry of Mass; Constitutional Convention 1787

  7. #1197
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,763

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Well, this thread has gone rather far afield from the topic. Let's get it back on track by reviewing a new editorial by an influential, conservative law professor stating why the mandate should be upheld:
    IMHO, the mandate was not a way to regulate a market, but to transfer trillions of dollars of wealth from ordinary Americans to insurance companies. Obama and the Congress have been bought, lock, stock, and barrel, by insurance lobbyists. Despite what Obama shovels at us, he is nothing more than yet another robber-baron asshole that dumbass Americans, who don't bother to take the time from watching Dancing With the Stars to actually read something, have chosen to run our nation.
    Last edited by danarhea; 04-17-12 at 07:48 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  8. #1198
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    IMHO, the mandate was not a way to regulate a market, but to transfer trillions of dollars of wealth from ordinary Americans to insurance companies. Obama and the Congress have been bought, lock, stock, and barrel, by insurance lobbyists. Despite what Obama shovels at us, he is nothing more than yet another robber-baron asshole that dumbass Americans, who don't bother to take the time from watching Dancing With the Stars to actually read something, have chosen to run our nation.
    So your opinion is that there is no value in health insurance? How do you figure that the estimated 2% of Americans who will be affected by the mandate will deliver "trillions of dollars of wealth" to the insurance companies?
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  9. #1199
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    I had one lacky follow me around to make sure I did not lift up a printer to check its model and serial number. Only a union thug thinks this is a good idea.
    I know of at least two non-union companies that would have assigned an IT tech to follow you around and do the lifting for you. Some IT departments are very anal about their equipment. Ours wouldn't let anyone even swap out a standard ink cartridge, they had to do it.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  10. #1200
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    IMHO, the mandate was not a way to regulate a market, but to transfer trillions of dollars of wealth from ordinary Americans to insurance companies. Obama and the Congress have been bought, lock, stock, and barrel, by insurance lobbyists. Despite what Obama shovels at us, he is nothing more than yet another robber-baron asshole that dumbass Americans, who don't bother to take the time from watching Dancing With the Stars to actually read something, have chosen to run our nation.
    The non-insurance tactic was tried a decade earlier and failed because most Republicans and some Dems couldn't stand the idea of the insurance industry losing all that money. I can't fault Obama & Co for not trying that plan again.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •