• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

Now that is a truly idiotic response. You're on a roll. The fact that death is inevitable has absolutely nothing to do with markets, which is the context of the health insurance discussion.

Hardly. The statement was that because you will engage in the commerce, you in effect are already engaging in the commerce. By exactly the same reasoning, because you will die, then you in effect are already dead.

"The markets" have nothing to do with that, but nice attempt at a dodge.

As for being on a "roll," I do have a roll of unanswered questions put to you.
 
Here's something closer to the original definition.

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450

"When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:418


Those are great Jefferson quotes. Jefferson must be rolling in his grave.
 
Last edited:
Anyone but me forget that the mandate was originally a conservative proposal that was justified on the basis of personal responsibility?

Has not one whit to do with constitutionality.
 
In medical emergencies time is crucial.

At death there's plenty of time to decide what your finances are so that a rational decision on whether you get the metal or pine coffin and a marble or limestone marker can be made. Should we wait a day or two after an accident to do the same for the injured so we can figure out if they get the bandage or the boot?

Again, has nothing to do with what I said. If "will do it" = "already doing it," then it's also true of death.

But "will do it" does NOT equal "already doing it."
 
Hardly. The statement was that because you will engage in the commerce, you in effect are already engaging in the commerce. By exactly the same reasoning, because you will die, then you in effect are already dead.

"The markets" have nothing to do with that, but nice attempt at a dodge.

As for being on a "roll," I do have a roll of unanswered questions put to you.

Thanks for trying, but it's still an idiotic argument. You see, health insurance, like all insurance, is about probability. Even if you aren't sick now, your participation or lack of partiicpation in the insurance market affects everyone's costs.
 
Thanks for trying, but it's still an idiotic argument. You see, health insurance, like all insurance, is about probability. Even if you aren't sick now, your participation or lack of partiicpation in the insurance market affects everyone's costs.

Repeating what you just said doesn't make it any more relevant than it was the first time.

"Will do" does not equal "is doing." Period.
 
Repeating what you just said doesn't make it any more relevant than it was the first time.

"Will do" does not equal "is doing." Period.
You must be a politician or a lawyer. I didn't realize you were arguing a point of a point of a point. :roll:

Minuscule crap is just that, crap - have fun. :peace


Ed:
We wouldn't be going through any of this if the Republicans didn't want their precious insurance companies in the loop. :-/ It should have been universal in the first place, paid with taxes. Then there wouldn't be an issue.
 
Last edited:
Anyone but me forget that the mandate was originally a conservative proposal that was justified on the basis of personal responsibility?

Then why do you agree with it, it couldn't possibly a good thing right?
 
Repeating what you just said doesn't make it any more relevant than it was the first time.

"Will do" does not equal "is doing." Period.

So, in your opinion, insurance companies DON'T set rates based upon the size and composition of their risk pool ... is that what you're saying? And hospitals DON'T increase their prices in anticipation of having to shell out for uninsured patients? Is that what you think? Best think again.
 
Anyone but me forget that the mandate was originally a conservative proposal that was justified on the basis of personal responsibility?

No, I didn't forget. Nor did I forget that the Democrats screamed 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL' at the time. And eventually the GOP figured out that the Dems were right hence dropping it. Now it appears the roles have been reversed. What happened? Did the Dems forget their arguing point or are they just being contrarian?
 
You must be a politician or a lawyer. I didn't realize you were arguing a point of a point of a point. :roll:

Minuscule crap is just that, crap - have fun. :peace

Considering I put the point I was arguing with in bold, your missing what I was arguing was your failing. Inexcusable, too, because it could not have been more plain.

But the larger point is indeed this -- Boo is trying to justify using the Commerce Clause to force people to buy health insurance on the argument that they're already engaged in commerce.

As the "already engaged" pseudo-argument is preposterous, then so is that Commerce Clause "argument." And no discussion of "markets" and "probability" will repair it.
 
So, in your opinion, insurance companies DON'T set rates based upon the size and composition of their risk pool ... is that what you're saying? And hospitals DON'T increase their prices in anticipation of having to shell out for uninsured patients? Is that what you think? Best think again.

Whenever you can't answer a direct, concise point, you engage in silly strawmen. This is no exception. I could write whole books on the things you've claimed I'm "saying" but in no way did.
 
Considering I put the point I was arguing with in bold, your missing what I was arguing was your failing. Inexcusable, too, because it could not have been more plain.

But the larger point is indeed this -- Boo is trying to justify using the Commerce Clause to force people to buy health insurance on the argument that they're already engaged in commerce.

As the "already engaged" pseudo-argument is preposterous, then so is that Commerce Clause "argument." And no discussion of "markets" and "probability" will repair it.

yet, despite your convulsions, my point still stands. You may revisit it and try to address it directly.
 
yet, despite your convulsions, my point still stands. You may revisit it and try to address it directly.

I already demolished it. You just quoted me doing it. Now you're just holding your hands to your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!!!"
 
I already demolished it. You just quoted me doing it. Now you're just holding your hands to your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!!!"

No, you didn't. You have far too much faith in your own lack of ability. I addressed your death argument directly. You need to do so here.
 
So you support the mandate now?

No you do, but you're agreeing with an old Republican proposal for completely different healthcare plan. Get your **** straight man!
 
No you do, but you're agreeing with an old Republican proposal for completely different healthcare plan. Get your **** straight man!

I agree witht the current plan? Thats news to me.

Anyhows now you are saying Republican's / conservatives came up with a bad plan, correct?
 
I agree witht the current plan? Thats news to me.

Anyhows now you are saying Republican's / conservatives came up with a bad plan, correct?

I'm not saying anything about that old plan because it's irrelevant, but you go ask AdamT because he obviously thinks is awesome.
 
In medical emergencies time is crucial.

At death there's plenty of time to decide what your finances are so that a rational decision on whether you get the metal or pine coffin and a marble or limestone marker can be made. Should we wait a day or two after an accident to do the same for the injured so we can figure out if they get the bandage or the boot?

And what did democrats say about the original propsals that a few conservatives (but most did not) like?
 
I'm not saying anything about that old plan because it's irrelevant, but you go ask AdamT because he obviously thinks is awesome.

Oh okay you are just to chastise others and support what ever the current conservative position is.
 
I addressed your death argument directly.

:lamo

You did no such thing. Nothing I said had anything to do with who pays for what.

"Will do" does not equal "is doing," and to say it does is idiotic. That's my argument. You haven't touched it. I think you know you can't, so you have to throw as much spaghetti against the wall as you possibly can in order to distract.
 
Richard Nixon pushed for a national healthcare system. If Obamacare is struck down, hopefully this country will find it in its brain & heart to follow the wisdom of Nixon on this issue.
 
Richard Nixon pushed for a national healthcare system. If Obamacare is struck down, hopefully this country will find it in its brain & heart to follow the wisdom of Nixon on this issue.

Honestly....if the mandate is shot down it's a pretty short run victory for Conservatism. You basically take off the table the "conservative" option of fixing healthcare and holding down costs. All that's pretty much left is an employer mandate or single payer. It may not be in 5 or 10 years but healcare will be revisited and now the "free market" option may be off the table via a conservative supreme court.
 
The mandate was a poor Republican idea that we got stuck with when a handful of bluedogs joined the Republicans in opposing the public option which was a far superior idea. I hope that this POS DOES get squashed and we can go back to getting what the American people wanted in the first place, a strong healthcare law with the public option.
 
Back
Top Bottom