• 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!

Health Care Reform Provision Is Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

Jetboogieman said:
They had no WMD's.
Click to expand...

actually they did; what they didn't have were the active production lines that we thought they did.

And now Iran and most definitely North Korea has them.
Click to expand...

Iran has had WMD's for decades in the form of chemical weapons; the question is how far away they are from developing a nuclear one.

but yes; both countries pretty much demonstrate the failure of the "soft power" approach to dealing with dictatorships.
 
Boo Radley said:
Is there any reason to belive that most read the ruling? Any at all. Too many listen to people like Beck and Limbaugh, and talking heads that merely promote misunderstandings. And much of the financing for the effort to remove the judges came from out of state. The ads were very misleading and inaccurate. So, it is unlikley that many, if any significant number, actually read the ruling.

So, no, my statement is no where near as silly as your legislators are the same as judges arguement.
Click to expand...

Complete and utter supposition, based on your opinion alone and no real facts to back it up. Come on, you'd be all over me like white on rice if I said that.
 
Boo Radley said:
my statement is no where (sic) near as silly as your legislators are the same as judges arguement (sic).
Click to expand...

now there's a powerful assertion

i'm less silly than you

LOL!
 
Boo once finished a debate with me by explaining that around the country there are things called "think tanks" full of "smart people" who do nothing but sit around and think about things like this; and since he was sure one of them knew of a reason why i was wrong, obviously i was incorrect. :D
 
Moderator's Warning:
Talk about the topic, not each other.
 
cpwill said:
Boo once finished a debate with me by explaining that around the country there are things called "think tanks" full of "smart people" who do nothing but sit around and think about things like this; and since he was sure one of them knew of a reason why i was wrong, obviously i was incorrect. :D
Click to expand...

It's not good form to be dishonest. You misrepresent that conversation a good deal. Such may gain you a laugh from some, but you lose respect from others. Just saying. . .
 
Whovian said:
Complete and utter supposition, based on your opinion alone and no real facts to back it up. Come on, you'd be all over me like white on rice if I said that.
Click to expand...

Every argument has an element of opinion. And there is really nothing wrong with that. I've explained why I hold that opinion, showed that generally, most don't read these types of things, and asked that you reference the actual ruling, something you ahve never once done.

So, yeah, I feel safe in how I'm tackling this. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
I feel safe in how I'm tackling this.
Click to expand...

well, that's all that really matters...

keep us informed about how you're feeling about yourself, it's fascinating
 
Whovian said:
Complete and utter supposition, based on your opinion alone and no real facts to back it up. Come on, you'd be all over me like white on rice if I said that.
Click to expand...
Hey, are you a rice bigot?

There's brown rice out there too, you know...

:mrgreen:
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not good form to be dishonest. You misrepresent that conversation a good deal. Such may gain you a laugh from some, but you lose respect from others. Just saying. . .
Click to expand...

You're statement to Will here only applies if you believe that CPWill is inherently dishonest. Now come on Joe, we have both known him for some time now, and dishonest is something I wouldn't use to label will's debate style....So let's knock that off can we?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
You're statement to Will here only applies if you believe that CPWill is inherently dishonest. Now come on Joe, we have both known him for some time now, and dishonest is something I wouldn't use to label will's debate style....So let's knock that off can we?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Not good idea to discuss other posters. I've said exactly what I mean.
 
j-mac said:
I know you have, I find that disappointing. You really have lessened yourself in my eyes Joe.

j-mac
Click to expand...

**** happens j. But if you were more objective, you might see why I said what I said. But, none of that matters. Have anything important to add?
 
lets get back on topic with the very basic premise that Forcing someone to buy something is unconstitutional in the purest form of the charge,
IF its not going to harm someone and or doesnt affect others adversly.

Auto Insurance because you may wreck someone elses car for instance. Or taxes because you do use the roads, and the government services are available to you for the common good of all.
*point being dont try to compare Health Insurance to other things, unless*
 
shades said:
lets get back on topic with the very basic premise that Forcing someone to buy something is unconstitutional in the purest form of the charge,
IF its not going to harm someone and or doesnt affect others adversly.

Auto Insurance because you may wreck someone elses car for instance. Or taxes because you do use the roads, and the government services are available to you for the common good of all.
*point being dont try to compare Health Insurance to other things, unless*
Click to expand...

You mean, like if you want to drive, you have to auto insurance? If you want to drive, you are forced or face penalties. The only difference is you really can't say you won't use health care. but, that is the only real difference. And they compare because if you guess wrong, and get seriously injuried or ill, we all pay for it. You can try and pretend otherwise, but it won't hold. The premise is the same: you have to have insurace so that others don't pay for your irresponsibility.
 
Boo Radley said:
You mean, like if you want to drive, you have to auto insurance? If you want to drive, you are forced or face penalties. The only difference is you really can't say you won't use health care. but, that is the only real difference. And they compare because if you guess wrong, and get seriously injuried or ill, we all pay for it. You can try and pretend otherwise, but it won't hold. The premise is the same: you have to have insurace so that others don't pay for your irresponsibility.
Click to expand...

that argument would hold up if we all payed the same, for comparable benefits, as with auto insurance.
this health care isnt anything of the kind, its all over the spectrum and unfair. therefore unconstitutional.

you want the same doctors, benefits, etc but want it for a fraction of what I pay, hows that going to work?
 
disneydude said:
I'm not surprised by this. This was the Republican alternative to the "public option" that they voted for before they voted against it. Obama was a fool to try to negotiate with them and as a result we ended up with this Republican idea in the health-care bill (that they voted against anyway) instead of a true public option. I hope that this gets stricken down and as a result we get TRUE healthcare reform including a public-option. That is what we should have gotten in the first place (and would have) if it hadn't been for the "party of no" ideas.
Click to expand...

When did Obama negotiate with Republicans?
 
Boo Radley said:
You mean, like if you want to drive, you have to auto insurance? If you want to drive, you are forced or face penalties. The only difference is you really can't say you won't use health care. but, that is the only real difference. And they compare because if you guess wrong, and get seriously injuried or ill, we all pay for it. You can try and pretend otherwise, but it won't hold. The premise is the same: you have to have insurace so that others don't pay for your irresponsibility.
Click to expand...

Taxing someone for simply living is what tyrants do.

Funny thing is I use to roll my eyes up at my folks whenever they said that the government was going to eventually tax us for the air we breath...I'm not rolling my eyes anymore.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Taxing someone for simply living is what tyrants do.

Funny thing is I use to roll my eyes up at my folks whenever they said that the government was going to eventually tax us for the air we breath...I'm not rolling my eyes anymore.
Click to expand...

No, that's a serious misrepresentation. They are having to pay insurance, for when they get it wrong. We pay for a lot of folks who think they won't need insurance, but oops, they were got hurt or ill. Same type of thing brought about mandatory auto insurance.
 
Boo Radley said:
You mean, like if you want to drive, you have to auto insurance? If you want to drive, you are forced or face penalties. The only difference is you really can't say you won't use health care. but, that is the only real difference. And they compare because if you guess wrong, and get seriously injuried or ill, we all pay for it. You can try and pretend otherwise, but it won't hold. The premise is the same: you have to have insurace so that others don't pay for your irresponsibility.
Click to expand...


Is Auto insurance mandated by the States? or the Federal Government?

Plus, is Auto insurance meant to protect you, or the other driver you damage?

Are you required to even own a car?

What if I only drive on my own property? Do I still need insurance?


j-mac
 
Last edited:
shades said:
that argument would hold up if we all payed the same, for comparable benefits, as with auto insurance.
this health care isnt anything of the kind, its all over the spectrum and unfair. therefore unconstitutional.

you want the same doctors, benefits, etc but want it for a fraction of what I pay, hows that going to work?
Click to expand...

Not following you. Someone wrecking to a new Mercedes will cost more than hitting a 74' ford. Not everyone paying the same. And My insurnace may cost more than yours. So, not sure what you're saying. But what I do know is that if you don't have insurance, and you need care, someone other than you is going to pay for it. It will be all of us.
 
j-mac said:
Is Auto insurance mandated by the States? or the Federal Government?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Not really important if your objection is just that it is mandated. If you're ok with state mandate but not federal mandate, that's a different argument. In that, you're saying a mandate is fine, but I wnat it to come from the state.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, that's a serious misrepresentation. They are having to pay insurance, for when they get it wrong. We pay for a lot of folks who think they won't need insurance, but oops, they were got hurt or ill. Same type of thing brought about mandatory auto insurance.
Click to expand...

No the misrepresentation is couching it in the "good for all" mantra. Taxing me for living is exactly what it is when you boil it down to the bare essence. And there is nothing that you can say to remove that fact.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not really important if your objection is just that it is mandated. If you're ok with state mandate but not federal mandate, that's a different argument. In that, you're saying a mandate is fine, but I wnat it to come from the state.
Click to expand...


Mass can do it? and have, it is a failure, I don't have to live there. Where can I go if this remains as it is?


j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom