• 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

Kal'Stang said:
No, we have car insurance for accidents. Not for the irresponsibility of others for not having car insurance.
Click to expand...

Yes, accidents with those who can't pay for their damages. So, no, you have not rebutted my argument. :coffeepap
 
Obamacare has zero chance to take hold ZERO.. So we are right to be debating other possible solutions, not on whether or not Obamacare will work
 
Gill said:
None of this makes a bit of difference. The federal government CANNOT mandate that all citizens buy a commercial product, period. This was decided by one judge and soon another will make the same ruling.

I'll take your shuffling around the question as inability to name another product or service mandated by the federal government. Does the federal government require my 10 year old grandaughter to buy auto insurance ??? Does the state ??
Click to expand...

That will be decided in the courts.

And you take sopmething anyway you want, but don't think I put any credence in your question as I have answered with the reasoning behind my assurtion. Too often people get stuck on a silly idea and think it answers all things. It makes no difference if any other produce or insurance is mandated on all. The reason behind the all is what matters. If all had to drive, all would be within the mandate. As all will need health care somtime, all are within the mandate. You have been answered.
 
shades said:
Obamacare has zero chance to take hold ZERO.. So we are right to be debating other possible solutions, not on whether or not Obamacare will work
Click to expand...

It may be low, but I'm not sure about zero. But whether it takes hold or not, we do need to work on the next step in imporving the first step. That is a must IMHO.
 
Boo Radley said:
That will be decided in the courts.

And you take sopmething anyway you want, but don't think I put any credence in your question as I have answered with the reasoning behind my assurtion. Too often people get stuck on a silly idea and think it answers all things. It makes no difference if any other produce or insurance is mandated on all. The reason behind the all is what matters. If all had to drive, all would be within the mandate. As all will need health care somtime, all are within the mandate. You have been answered.
Click to expand...

Really??? Maybe you should be kind and point out where you showed us all another product or service mandated by the federal government. The judge sure put a lot of credence in my question when he struck down the law.

Maybe I'm getting hard of seeing in my old age.............or maybe you are lying and didn't answer it at all. I think everyone on this thread can see which one it is.
 
Boo Radley said:
don't think I put any credence in your question as I have answered with the reasoning behind my assurtion
Click to expand...

LOL!

what was that again, socrates?

It may be low, but I'm not sure about zero
Click to expand...

another brilliant defense

whether it takes hold or not, we do need to work on the next step in imporving the first step
Click to expand...

tell it to john boehner

tell it to kent conrad

get real
 
Last edited:
Erod said:
We could tell it to Nancy Pelosi, but she wouldn't understand it if she even bothered to read it.
Click to expand...

See the difference between my joke and yours, is mine isn't fueled by Hyperpartisanship.

Not to mention how hilarious it is that your signature has a quote from a President talking about government spending money, which I ASSUME is you trying to make a statement about the deficit, only to forget that the very man who made that statement was a deficit adding president.... Whoops must have forgot that eh? :coffeepap:
 
Jetboogieman said:
See the difference between my joke and yours, is mine isn't fueled by Hyperpartisanship.
Click to expand...

That one made me spit coffee on my keyboard.... the hypocrisy is thick...........:lamo

Not to mention how hilarious it is that your signature has a quote from a President talking about government spending money, which I ASSUME is you trying to make a statement about the deficit, only to forget that the very man who made that statement was a deficit adding president.... Whoops must have forgot that eh? :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

I was taught in school that Congress is the branch of government that is authorized to spend money. Did that change and no one told me about it ???
 
Jetboogieman said:
See the difference between my joke and yours, is mine isn't fueled by Hyperpartisanship.
Click to expand...

...says the most hyperpartisan member of the board. LOL

Reagan inherited a horrible situation in 1980 and a Democratic-controlled Congress. He spent much of his two terms fighting off their government expansion from every angle. He brilliantly set the table for the tax cuts that came later when Republicans finally took Congress in the 90s after 40 years of Democratic control, long after Reagan was retired.

But good job totally blowing that.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I could tell it to John Boehner, but he might cry
Click to expand...

what will kent conrad, budget chair, do?

max baucus at finance?

joe lieberman, ben nelson, joe manchin, jon tester, mark pryor?

evan bayh, blanche lincoln, byron dorgan---oh, yeah, that's right, republicans are sitting now in those seats

what will be the response of the hyphies in the house, y'know, this time?

Profanity, Anger Spill Over in House Democratic Caucus Meeting : Roll Call

seeya in the cloakroom, machiavelli
 
Boo Radley said:
. We have mandatory auot insurance to protect others from the irresponsible drivers who drive uninsured. This is the same rational for having mandatory health insurance.
Click to expand...

and this is our entire argument,

what YOU are saying, or your side is that therefore, obamacare will eventually lower my rates?

you're friggin kidding me right?
 
Last edited:
Gill said:
That one made me spit coffee on my keyboard.... the hypocrisy is thick...........:lamo



I was taught in school that Congress is the branch of government that is authorized to spend money. Did that change and no one told me about it ???
Click to expand...

amongst other things, yea.

Is that the part you remember most? really man.

Government by the people, for the people would have been a more defining sniglet to put in your memory bank.

Because when that government forgets this part, it will be replaced.
which is what happened last month.

When every poll out there, in this day and age, that says overwhelmingly that the majority of the population feels strongly about something one way or the other,
then they should take heed.
unless its to do with national security, and we assume, based on facts and intelligence gathering, that we may not be privy to of course.
In these cases we have to trust them, until proven otherwise.
 
shades said:
and this is our entire argument,

what YOU are saying, or your side is that therefore, obamacare will evntually lower my rates?

you're friggin kidding me right?
Click to expand...

Not sure that is exactly what I'm saying. Certainly not as it stands now. But I still hope for more work to be done, and yes, if we actually tackle the issue, minus the fear mongering, it might be possible to make something better than not only this bill, but what we ahve without it.
 
Gill said:
Really??? Maybe you should be kind and point out where you showed us all another product or service mandated by the federal government. The judge sure put a lot of credence in my question when he struck down the law.

Maybe I'm getting hard of seeing in my old age.............or maybe you are lying and didn't answer it at all. I think everyone on this thread can see which one it is.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should try seeing the actual argument. It would help you a lot. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Not sure that is exactly what I'm saying. Certainly not as it stands now. But I still hope for more work to be done, and yes, if we actually tackle the issue, minus the fear mongering, it might be possible to make something better than not only this bill, but what we ahve without it.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying, and the only possible plus to this monstrosity of a social program is that it at least opens up the conversation.

I'm not sure that it is a good opening argument though, and neither do you, you seem quite rational
 
shades said:
I hear what you are saying, and the only possible plus to this monstrosity of a social program is that it at least opens up the conversation.

I'm not sure that it is a good opening argument though, and neither do you, you seem quite rational
Click to expand...

God, I would love the conversation to open up, and to for it to be a rational discussion.
 
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...

You have no choice... You have to pay taxes, it's the law. Stop moaning and groaning and do it like the rest of us do.

ricksfolly
 
Boo Radley said:
Good imitation of the prof method of posting, but you miss a couiple of things:

1. There are difference in the federal plan and the Mass plan. A direct comparison is not possible.
Click to expand...

:lol: okay. regail us with the vast differences in the structures of these plans.

mandate? check.
forces insurance companies to take people with preexisting conditions? check.
offers subsidies to people purchasing insurance on the exchange? check.
demonstrates disastrously unaware ignorance of how insurance functions? check.

...

2. You and republicans oppose what would be more more effective -- a universal payer.
Click to expand...

of course we do; because it wouldn't be more effective. prior to Obamacare, a solid majority of Americans were satisfied or happy with their health care. meanwhile, More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding. and they are right. why in the world would we want to move from a good system with problems to a horrible system doomed to collapse?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom