• 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!

Doctor tells Obama supporters: Go elsewhere for health care

rathi said:
What a scumbug. He swore an oath, and yet he puts pathetic partisan politics above his profession. The only saving grace is that he is screwing himself by losing out on reasonable customers. He is more than welcome to bash Obama all he likes, but it is shameful to go so far.
Click to expand...

Wow, someone who puts their principles ahead of money.

Obama and your dem buddies swore an oath--to uphold the constitution

WTF is your ire of their betrayal
 
TurtleDude said:
Wow, someone who puts their principles ahead of money.

Obama and your dem buddies swore an oath--to uphold the constitution

WTF is your ire of their betrayal
Click to expand...
please name the exact part of the constitution that has been betrayed
 
I saw the guy on Anderson Cooper. What a space-case. Hard to believe this guy made it to doctor status.

It's no surprise he's a Urologist though. Takes one to know one I suppose. :mrgreen:
 
washunut said:
That being said, for those who thought talking about death panels was over the top as I did so are some of your comments. To suggest that this doctor would actually do harm to his patients is a pretty outrageous statement. I am not a lawyer, if there is one who reads this I would like your opinion in the statement I am addressing could be called libelous.
Click to expand...

They're only 'over the top' if you don't do business with this particular doctor. We don't know him personally, and the company that does his testing doesn't, either. You can certainly believe that this doctor wouldn't intentionally harm patients who vocally disagree with his political opinion yet recieve medical care from him anyway, but if your business has millions and millions of dollars resting on it, you're gonna need more than an "I believe" statement. Like I said, he'll either get dropped, or he's going to get inspected by whatever company does his testing.

Agree with him or not, it's just bad for business.
 
randel said:
please name the exact part of the constitution that has been betrayed
Click to expand...

10th amendment for one

what part of the document was congress given this power?
 
randel said:
exactly how do you feel that this amendment was violated?
Click to expand...

congress was never given the power to do this

I guess you don't understand t hat congress only has the powers specifically delegated to it in the constitution

are you being evasive or just ignorant?
 
TurtleDude said:
congress was never given the power to do this

I guess you don't understand t hat congress only has the powers specifically delegated to it in the constitution

are you being evasive or just ignorant?
Click to expand...

neither....i'm asking you to explain 'exactly' how this amendment was violated, not just throw up a blanket 'its a violation of' argument...i'm asking for specifics
 
randel said:
neither....i'm asking you to explain 'exactly' how this amendment was violated, not just throw up a blanket 'its a violation of' argument...i'm asking for specifics
Click to expand...

one last time

where was congress given the power to do this health care takeover

where was congress empowered to force people to enter into contracts or face penalties?
 
TurtleDude said:
one last time

where was congress given the power to do this health care takeover

where was congress empowered to force people to enter into contracts or face penalties?
Click to expand...
i would think the 'necessary and proper' clause or 'general welfare clause' could be argued to give the government this power.
 
randel said:
i would think the 'necessary and proper' clause or 'general welfare clause' could be argued to give the government this power.
Click to expand...

LOL

you don't have a law degree or any legal training do you

But I give you credit, you think as Pelosi does

but that is not a valid response though I admit, many politicians, who know even less about the constitution than you do, spew the same thing
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL

you don't have a law degree or any legal training do you

But I give you credit, you think as Pelosi does

but that is not a valid response though I admit, many politicians, who know even less about the constitution than you do, spew the same thing
Click to expand...
law training...nope....do you? how about contract law?
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL

you don't have a law degree or any legal training do you

But I give you credit, you think as Pelosi does

but that is not a valid response though I admit, many politicians, who know even less about the constitution than you do, spew the same thing
Click to expand...

i missed the part where you displayed your legal expertise and posted why the general welfare clause is not a sound basis for healthcare reform (or medicare or social security or a host of other legislated public programs not specifically enumerated in the Constitution)
i look forward to that profound legal explanation defending your position
 
justabubba said:
i missed the part where you displayed your legal expertise and posted why the general welfare clause is not a sound basis for healthcare reform (or medicare or social security or a host of other legislated public programs not specifically enumerated in the Constitution)
i look forward to that profound legal explanation defending your position
Click to expand...
kinda what i'm waiting for...you are correct those 'clauses' have been used throughout the history of this country to justify such programs, and several laws.
 
randel said:
law training...nope....do you? how about contract law?
Click to expand...

all law involves contract

I am a civil and constitutional rights trial attorney as well as handling employment discrimination and labor issues.

The "general welfare" and necessary and proper is not a specific delegation of power. If it were then congress could do anything it wanted and the tenth amendment would have no meaning because, by definition, congress will always "find" that its legislation is "necessary and proper" or "for the general welfare"

However, in the last 15 years the tenth amendment--totally ignored by the FDR administration to the point that even conservative jurists accepted its shunning as precedent--has become a bit more prominent as the USSC struck down parts of the Brady Bill in Prinz and in Lopez threw out a law that penalized having a gun within a certain distance of a school as violations of the tenth amendment.
 
justabubba said:
i missed the part where you displayed your legal expertise and posted why the general welfare clause is not a sound basis for healthcare reform (or medicare or social security or a host of other legislated public programs not specifically enumerated in the Constitution)
i look forward to that profound legal explanation defending your position
Click to expand...

so it is your learned opinion that any law that congress decrees is for the general welfare is properly within congressional jurisdiction to act?

Excellent

Why then was the State Mandate imposition in the Brady Bill or Lopez struck down on Tenth Amendment principles when Congress clearly indicated both laws were "for the public welfare"
 
TurtleDude said:
all law involves contract

I am a civil and constitutional rights trial attorney as well as handling employment discrimination and labor issues.

The "general welfare" and necessary and proper is not a specific delegation of power. If it were then congress could do anything it wanted and the tenth amendment would have no meaning because, by definition, congress will always "find" that its legislation is "necessary and proper" or "for the general welfare"

However, in the last 15 years the tenth amendment--totally ignored by the FDR administration to the point that even conservative jurists accepted its shunning as precedent--has become a bit more prominent as the USSC struck down parts of the Brady Bill in Prinz and in Lopez threw out a law that penalized having a gun within a certain distance of a school as violations of the tenth amendment.
Click to expand...
as i stated above, these clauses have been used for justification for other programs/laws...why not health care? what exactly is the government doing different here?
 
randel said:
as i stated above, these clauses have been used for justification for other programs/laws...why not health care? what exactly is the government doing different here?
Click to expand...

I agree, they have been used as a justification

and it is dishonest and right now the best the left wing "scholars" can come up with is

well the tenth amendment has been violated before so what is one more violation


now here is the 100 dollar question

can you honestly say the constitution delegated this power to the the federal government as opposed to saying that the FDR administration and those subsequent to it ignored what the constitution actually empowered congress to do


and if so, why have some laws been recently struck down on tenth amendment grounds just as the early age of the New Deal (Schechter Poultry for example) much of that rape of the constitution was being stricken on tenth amendment grounds.
 
randel said:
as i stated above, these clauses have been used for justification for other programs/laws...why not health care? what exactly is the government doing different here?
Click to expand...

But, has the USSC upheld that justification? That is the important issue. TurtleDude has referred to cases where the justification was rejected by the USSC. Do you have any cases where the justification was accepted by the USSC?
 
I believe the commerce clause might or might not give justification for the law. RightinNYC posted an excellent reference to a pro/con writeup on it.
 
Dezaad said:
But, has the USSC upheld that justification? That is the important issue. TurtleDude has referred to cases where the justification was rejected by the USSC. Do you have any cases where the justification was accepted by the USSC?
Click to expand...
i will have to do some research on it, but, if all the programs/laws that have been around for years and years, based on this justification, are 'illegal', why havent there been challenges on all of them?
 
MrVicchio said:
53055642.JPG



Obama health care supporters: Florida doctor tells Obama health care supporters to go elsewhere - OrlandoSentinel.com

Now that's a smart Doc! :) I like his attitude.
Click to expand...
His attitude disgusts me!
My idea of health care reform is to be rid of fools like this!
 
earthworm said:
His attitude disgusts me!
My idea of health care reform is to be rid of fools like this!
Click to expand...

well your wish is going to come true because lots of doctors are going to retire or stop practicing medicine because of your messiah's idiotic new law.

Then we will see who the real fools are.
 
TurtleDude said:
well your wish is going to come true because lots of doctors are going to retire or stop practicing medicine because of your messiah's idiotic new law.

.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. They're all going to work at Walmart.
 
aps said:
For you there's a difference. But even accepting that there's a difference, the varying levels of unprofessionalism still impact my trust in that person.
Click to expand...

A highly specialized field that has to go through seven to ten years of college and education beyond the high school level, undergo rigorous licensing procedures, and continue learning throughout a career - and you don't trust them because of an innocuous pseudo-political statement. I guess rationality passes you by.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom