• 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

cpwill said:
close.

When people join together to sell to others, they are capitalists.
When people join together to take from others, they are socialists.

:) glad I could help you with that.
Click to expand...
Workers sell their labor and expertise so I agree with this assessment.

It's kinda' odd calling bankers "socialists" - but whatever trips your trigger! :shrug:
 
cpwill said:
considering that thus far the major themes of the two appear to be indistinguishable......
Click to expand...
Afraid to quote the second sentence? Maybe I shouldn't have separated them.
Using your latest definitions, socialist bankers put us in this hellhole - long before Jan '09.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
close.

When people join together to sell to others, they are capitalists.
When people join together to take from others, they are socialists.

:) glad I could help you with that.
Click to expand...

Does your paycheck have a Statue of Liberty on it?
 
Misterveritis said:
Except that is not the way it works in the real world. Union thugs make deals with democrat politicians. The politician gets elected with the help of union "volunteers". The union gets big pay and/or benefit increases. The politicians get kickbacks called donations to their campaigns. The cycle repeats until we become Greece.
Click to expand...

You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about and are only embarassing yourself.
 
jet57 said:
You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about and are only embarassing yourself.
Click to expand...
I will take my chances. I am a free man. You are a union man. You were in a private sector union, were you not? Are you claiming a better knowledge of how public sector unions work because of it? I had my share of unions when I helped solve a problem at Pittsburgh Steel some years ago. Just one example, I had a union thug follow me around all day to make sure I did not pick up any of the printers. That was a union job. So if I needed the model number off the bottom of the printer I had to fill out a work request and wait for some union lacky to come over to pick it up. The Union I was exposed to seemed pro-socialist, anti-American, wasters.

Your mileage, as you are a union man, may vary.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And yet the US went into a recession not too long ago because of why? Politicians helping out their buddies who helped them get elected. The negative aspects of legislation often don't present themselves until years have gone by, when things are allowed to build up. In the mean time both sides are gaining while the third loses. And when it all collapses they do their best to shift the blame. Be the blame gets shifted to an opposing party or some patsy.
Click to expand...

Largely wealthy folks and not working folks. There is a relationship between wealthy and politicians, as they need each other (the use of one another goes both ways). But even then, you give politicians too much credit and blame for the economy. They don't really control the economy.

And while I agree each party blames the other, one party has been effective in blaming workers while seemingly ignoring not only their responsibility, but convincing their supporters that the wealthy are being picked on.
 
j-mac said:
You either clearly do not know what happens, or you are not going to answer it because you know that they are then pushed off on the taxpayer through the Federal pension guarantee program.

Welcome to PBGC
Click to expand...

You have a real bad habit J of not being able to recognize an answer. I tend to think it is a tactic to avoid having to think beyond the mindless trash you read, but regardless, try to read the answer.

How about you respond back with something coherent as to what you don't understand or the point you want to make.



1) What makes them special? Most people who work in this country contribute to a 401K for their retirement, along with employer contribution match if you're lucky.

2) Unions destroy job opportunities. Tell me, If I want to work for a company that has union employment, then why must I join their union?

j-mac
Click to expand...

1) Yes, I contribute. So do all other state employees. If you're employer, be it private or state, negotiate something different, the blame lies not solely with the employee, but the employer as well. So, this doesn't answer at all why you think they are different. You likely have something over generalization you haven't articulated.

2) Again, two sentences with no relationship to one another. You over generalize that unions destroy job opportunities (also a bit a few other fallacies in that like assuming things not settled, and / or causal relationship error). they you leap to why should be forced to join. A completely different issue. Neither of these answer anything I've asked. So, how should I respond?
 
Boo Radley said:
Largely wealthy folks and not working folks. There is a relationship between wealthy and politicians, as they need each other (the use of one another goes both ways). But even then, you give politicians too much credit and blame for the economy. They don't really control the economy.
Click to expand...

Politicians may not control the economy but they do have a large ability to affect it. For example, what would happen to the economy if drugs were suddenly made legal? Or soda was made illegal?

Boo Radley said:
And while I agree each party blames the other, one party has been effective in blaming workers while seemingly ignoring not only their responsibility, but convincing their supporters that the wealthy are being picked on.
Click to expand...

I blame both parties for this recession. It all started under Clinton with deregulation and continued with Bush's inaction.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Politicians may not control the economy but they do have a large ability to affect it. For example, what would happen to the economy if drugs were suddenly made legal? Or soda was made illegal?
Click to expand...

I think their ability is overstated. We've had good and bad economies regardless of what they have been doing. Someone makes money on both those things, now, and would after wards. What would be affected would be how much money the government makes, how much can be taxed. Otherwise, some one is selling it and someone is buying it. Money is in the market place.


I blame both parties for this recession. It all started under Clinton with deregulation and continued with Bush's inaction.
Click to expand...

Deregulation was popular and still is in conservative circles. But, that is not enough alone to derail this economy. And largely,we're still a very wealthy nation.

But I would note that many, largely conservative, are arguing for less jobs. When you shrink the government, people don't leap from government jobs to private sector jobs. Those people become unemployed and have to hope they can get something when and if things turn around. Their logic gets lost.

But, hiring people is really the only sure way government can increase jobs. ;)
 
Kal'Stang said:
Are you saying that none of that is true?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that his asessment is not only unture but shows a profound sense of ignornace when it comes to politicas and labor, and how labor increases its beneifts.
 
Misterveritis said:
I will take my chances. I am a free man. You are a union man. You were in a private sector union, were you not? Are you claiming a better knowledge of how public sector unions work because of it? I had my share of unions when I helped solve a problem at Pittsburgh Steel some years ago. Just one example, I had a union thug follow me around all day to make sure I did not pick up any of the printers. That was a union job. So if I needed the model number off the bottom of the printer I had to fill out a work request and wait for some union lacky to come over to pick it up. The Union I was exposed to seemed pro-socialist, anti-American, wasters.

Your mileage, as you are a union man, may vary.
Click to expand...

You helped solve a problem at Pittsburgh Steel?? 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).

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 . . .

(chuckle)

Just an amazing hyperbolic and paranoid and jealous opinion that you have.
 
Boo Radley said:
And while I agree each party blames the other, one party has been effective in blaming workers while seemingly ignoring not only their responsibility, but convincing their supporters that the wealthy are being picked on.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Boo Radley said:
But I would note that many, largely conservative, are arguing for less jobs. When you shrink the government, people don't leap from government jobs to private sector jobs. Those people become unemployed and have to hope they can get something when and if things turn around. Their logic gets lost.

But, hiring people is really the only sure way government can increase jobs. ;)
Click to expand...
Imagine how well of we will be when everyone has a government job.
 
jet57 said:
You helped solve a problem at Pittsburgh Steel??
Click to expand...
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).
Click to expand...
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 . . .
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Please keep the chuckle. So far it iss the only part of your posts I actually like.
 
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
Click to expand...
 
And another....

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

[h=1]Conservative legal scholar: We already regulate inactivity[/h]
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
Click to expand...
 
Misterveritis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Misterveritis said:
Imagine how well of we will be when everyone has a government job.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Misterveritis said:
Yes. It involved networked printers all over the many facilities.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:
AdamT said:
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:
Click to expand...

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:
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Misterveritis said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom