Page 54 of 122 FirstFirst ... 444525354555664104 ... LastLast
Results 531 to 540 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #531
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    Interesting. You enjoy long walks in the park, the sound of crickets at night, and drinking mohito's while listening to Rick Astley. How nice to have it that way.



    (trying to get inside the head of boo, where people hear one thing and your mind somehow creates an entirely seperate and different statement that you attribute to them and respond to as thus)
    Try harder.

    As a conservative, you must know how often your side of the isle screams judicial activism. And somehow, someway, it is always about a ruling you didn't like. Seems like sour grapes to me.

    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.

  2. #532
    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 buck View Post
    That would be against the law. Insurance companies can not drop an insured because they are sick. Material misrepresentation (within the first 2 years of the contract) or the client not paying premiums are the only reasons they can cancel policies. I realize democrats told you they cuold, but they lied to you.

    However, even if you were correct, which you aren't, then toughen that up so they can't just drop you for no legal reason. I wouldn't have much problem with that. I doubt any republican would.
    No, obviously it's perfectly legal for an insurance (or any) company to drop you at the end of your policy period. Generally that only happens if you have an individual (as opposed to group) coverage. If you have employer-provided coverage you can have the same problem if you are fired, change jobs for another reason, or simply because you're too sick to work. You can continue coverage for awhile under COBRA, but then you and your preexisting condition are on your own. I'd like to see you chat up a woman with metastatic breast cancer who had to leave her job and ended up losing her insurance ... when you tell her to toughen up.
    "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. #533
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    How can you possibly call yourself conservative yet be in favor of the gov't forcing you to buy something?

  4. #534
    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 dontworrybehappy View Post
    How can you possibly call yourself conservative yet be in favor of the gov't forcing you to buy something?
    Or to put it another way, how can you call yourself conservative when you are fighting for the right of people to free ride on the backs of those who took personal responsibility for their own health care?

    Hey, maybe we should legalize shoplifting, too? It's wrong that people are FORCED to pay for snacks and soft drinks! Why is the government mandating that people eat food?!
    Last edited by AdamT; 03-29-12 at 10:40 AM.
    "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

  5. #535
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Try harder.

    As a conservative, you must know how often your side of the isle screams judicial activism. And somehow, someway, it is always about a ruling you didn't like. Seems like sour grapes to me.
    Oh, I absolutely agree that at times those on the right cry judicial activism when none has been conducted.

    However, you have seemingly decided that rather than act differently then them and speak objectively you will simply mirror them in stereotyping and utilizing hyperbole to wrongfully paint any and everything said by a conservative on the issue as being a lie or misrepresentation and that in reality any conservative talking about it must REALLY believe that judicial activisim is just things they dislike.

    Cpwill's statement, even if you disagree with it, at least sought to put forward a legitimate definition and line in regards to what judicial activism is in his opinion and gave a fair explanation of it. Essentially his view seems to be that "Judicial Activism" is a process in which judges put forth an affirmative argument that the consitution infers or states something that it doesn't clearly indicate and uses that affirmative argument as the basis for its ruling.

    If the court was to rule that the mandate was not constitution, this case would not fit that definition. The courts ruling would not be based on the court finding that there is some constitutional principle not explicately stated in the constitution which inherently disallows the mandate, IE an affirmative argument against it based on a supposed provision of the constitution. Rather, the courts ruling would be based on a negative argument on the part of government that there simply isn't a provision within the constitution that allows them to do such.

    While you may disagree with Cpwill's definition of what is or isn't judicial activism, he is clearly and directly stating what the basis for his judgement on the issue is. However, whether than fairly and objectively dealing with his words you've instead chosen to stereotype all conservatives, place that stereotype upon him, and then decree what he "actually" meant through your implications of what his words were stating.

  6. #536
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    Oh, I absolutely agree that at times those on the right cry judicial activism when none has been conducted.

    However, you have seemingly decided that rather than act differently then them and speak objectively you will simply mirror them in stereotyping and utilizing hyperbole to wrongfully paint any and everything said by a conservative on the issue as being a lie or misrepresentation and that in reality any conservative talking about it must REALLY believe that judicial activisim is just things they dislike.

    Cpwill's statement, even if you disagree with it, at least sought to put forward a legitimate definition and line in regards to what judicial activism is in his opinion and gave a fair explanation of it. Essentially his view seems to be that "Judicial Activism" is a process in which judges put forth an affirmative argument that the consitution infers or states something that it doesn't clearly indicate and uses that affirmative argument as the basis for its ruling.

    If the court was to rule that the mandate was not constitution, this case would not fit that definition. The courts ruling would not be based on the court finding that there is some constitutional principle not explicately stated in the constitution which inherently disallows the mandate, IE an affirmative argument against it based on a supposed provision of the constitution. Rather, the courts ruling would be based on a negative argument on the part of government that there simply isn't a provision within the constitution that allows them to do such.

    While you may disagree with Cpwill's definition of what is or isn't judicial activism, he is clearly and directly stating what the basis for his judgement on the issue is. However, whether than fairly and objectively dealing with his words you've instead chosen to stereotype all conservatives, place that stereotype upon him, and then decree what he "actually" meant through your implications of what his words were stating.
    I know CP pretty well, and he is such a person who sees the court that way. Me poking a little fun at him should not be taken too seriously. Still, he has a history and that history doesn't go away. If this is upheld, I'd bet a cup of coffee (and I don't like giving up my coffee) that he will call it judicial activism.

    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.

  7. #537
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    If this is upheld, I'd bet a cup of coffee (and I don't like giving up my coffee) that he will call it judicial activism.
    If it is upheld, it WOULD be activism of some sort. Since the constitution not only does not provide government with the power to force people go buy a product from private industry, it also does not provide the power for them to be in the health care business, or the auto business, or many other places it has expanded it's power.

    If it is upheld, it will set a precident that government can force citizens to buy things 'for the good of all'. So the out of control, power hungry people in DC will start brainstorming and come up with more they can do to steal more money from those that work, and give it to those that do not, in order to ensure their votes next time around.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  8. #538
    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 Arbo View Post
    If it is upheld, it WOULD be activism of some sort. Since the constitution not only does not provide government with the power to force people go buy a product from private industry, it also does not provide the power for them to be in the health care business, or the auto business, or many other places it has expanded it's power.

    If it is upheld, it will set a precident that government can force citizens to buy things 'for the good of all'. So the out of control, power hungry people in DC will start brainstorming and come up with more they can do to steal more money from those that work, and give it to those that do not, in order to ensure their votes next time around.
    See what I mean?

    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.

  9. #539
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,262

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I can't do anything about your poor judgment.

    You can't even do anything about your own.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #540
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,262

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    See what I mean?
    Regulating commerce and creating commerce are two different things.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

Posting Permissions

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