• 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!

Obama Health-Care Reform Act Ruled Unconstitutional(edited)

Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

Sgt Meowenstein;1059260495]Great. That's your opinion. Your opinion isn't fact. You seem to have trouble separating the two.
Click to expand...

Seems you have a problem understanding the role of the Federal govt. and the role of the state govt. Suggest a civics and history lesson

Until the SCOTUS says otherwise, the mandate is in place. You can call it unconstitutional all you like, but that doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

The Court ruled the bill unconstitutional so until either a stay or ruling is made the mandate no longer is legal. Violating the court will lead to contempt of court and is a violation of the law.


Wow, you are a ****ing joke. I have repeatedly stated my position on this subject. You have repeatedly stated yours. You act like you've given me stone cold facts. You haven't. You have given me a typical conservative take on things. I'm not sure if you're aware of this; but political ideals aren't facts. So if I choose not to buy into your conservative argument, that doesn't mean that I have been bested or that I'm running away. It simply means that I don't agree with you. And I'm not going to post the same argument over and over.
Click to expand...

Your argument is opinion countered with fact. I gave you the link to the Census site that will show you the facts that you ignore about the 50 million uninsured. A little research will show what MA has done with Universal Healthcare and what Europe is doing now with Govt. healthcare. the question is why the continued defense in the face of actual results?

I'm sure you must be very proud of yourself. Don't be. The only thing you've proven is that you are a partisan right-winger. I have news for you: your opinion is not the only one out there.
Click to expand...

Actually what I have shown that your partisan ideology trumps actual facts, logic, and common sense. Facts aren't partisan, they are reality. Opinions don't trump facts.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
Would you like a gold star or a cookie?
Click to expand...

no thanks

i'll derive satisfaction from the death of the public option, per kent conrad, ben nelson, joe lieberman, jim webb, max baucus...
 
Zyphlin said:
Its fun watching someone bitch about people not owning up to facts, and then watching them spit out pure falsehoods while also showing they don't bother to research their own facts.

First, there was no real official "republican" health care bill. There was one penned by oft criticized former Republican Lincoln Chafee that did get a significant amount of support for a short time as a possible "compromise" bill, one such compromise being the individual mandate. However within a few months the mandate, and the bill, was roundly criticized and rejected by a majority of Republicans including those previously supporting it, the AMA, and the CBO. You also had the Cooper-Grady health care proposal out there as a possible Republican backed proposal along with the Rowland/Bilirakis one and not that long after the Packwood-Dole which was just as largely supported by Republicans as the Chafee plan and it rejected the idea of an individual mandate. So stating it was some kind of "Official" uniformed Republican preference is an absolute absurdity and highlights the hypocrisy of you complaining about others being honest when you spew such rhetoric yourself. Taking ONE republican backed plan during a time when they were completely out of control of the government and had to put forth compromised bills that gave ground to the other side in hopes of having any shot of legitimately potentially getting something passed as the "OFFICIAL" stance of "REPUBLIACNS" while ignoring other competing bills and wide scale rejection of said bill within a few months time is ridiculously disingenuous. At best you could say it was the stance of a majority of Senate Republicans, and that's about as far as you can get.

Secondly, attempting to attribute individuals within a parties ideas as some sort of party wide stance is ridiculous. Shall I find a singular Democrat suggesting pro-life and suggest then that pro-life is the Democratic Parties stance? Shall I find a singular bill penned by a Democrat pushing for the banning of all handguns as proof that it is the Democratic Parties idea of gun control? Shall we ignore that one of Romeny's largest problems during the primary was his actions surrounding health care in Massachusetts and he's rounded stated that such a thing was the right choice based on his constituents desires at a state level but not something he'd suggest for the federal? Your logic has so many holes in it and your hypocrisy is so transparent that your post might as well best be described as a pane of glass mimicing swiss cheese.

Thirdly, the idea of an individual mandate as the only method of allowing the government for force insurance companies to stop denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions is a legitimate one. It also just happens to be an unconstitutional one. Thus the problem. Its the only thing that even gets close to making the notion the Democrats are pushing "doable", and even that is a stretch, and yet to do so would be to act in a way that is unconstitutional...which is what makes the entire thing problematic to begin with and something the government shouldn't be doing due to the damage it will cause.

I don't deny that at some point some republicans had the ideas about the individual mandate. However the constistant labeling it as a "Republican Idea" as if that gives it credance, makes it some "official stance", or suggest that conservatives by and large are automatically hypocritical for disagreeing with it as if its some kind of unconditional truth of conservatism...as your use of the "republican idea" meme continually implies and suggests...is as dishonest as going through threads repeatedly suggesting that Democrats support banning all guns.
Click to expand...

And all of that doesn't change the fact that the mandate was a Republican idea...yaaawn...
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
And all of that doesn't change the fact that the mandate was a Republican idea...yaaawn...
Click to expand...

What are you trying to prove with this? Their minds aren't going to be changed. Republicans play the politics game so goddam well.
The healthcare bill isn't anything on the scale of Medicare part D. This bill was all essentially a Republican idea to begin with. The difference is, they got to demonize the democrats for passing it.
You can say thats them being assholes, but isn't that what politics in the end is? Knowing precisely how much of an asshole to be and not more.
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

Conservative said:
Seems you have a problem understanding the role of the Federal govt. and the role of the state govt. Suggest a civics and history lesson
Click to expand...

You can't be this dense. Liberals and conservatives have different views on the role of gov't. You see things one way, I see them another way. I am not wrong just because I don't see things your way. Political ideology and theories on the role of gov't are not facts.

Conservative said:
The Court ruled the bill unconstitutional so until either a stay or ruling is made the mandate no longer is legal. Violating the court will lead to contempt of court and is a violation of the law.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

While appeals are pending, nothing stops the U.S. from enforcing the health-care legislation outside of those districts where part or all of it has been invalidated, Presser said.

White House to Pursue Health-Care Appeal After Florida Ruling - Bloomberg
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
Your argument is opinion countered with fact. I gave you the link to the Census site that will show you the facts that you ignore about the 50 million uninsured. A little research will show what MA has done with Universal Healthcare and what Europe is doing now with Govt. healthcare. the question is why the continued defense in the face of actual results?
Click to expand...

I can say the same about you. All you have done is give me your opinion. You have not given me facts. Again: political ideology is not fact. Get it? I doubt it.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
Seriously?
Click to expand...
Ya. Seriously.

Sgt Meowenstein said:
I posted multiple quotes - some from REPUBLICANS - backing up the FACT that the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea.
Click to expand...
You apparently do not quite understand the concept of "evidence". You writing someting and attributing it to someone is not evidence... and I'm sorry but, you're way to new to this board for me to take you word on anything.

Sgt Meowenstein said:
How can you continue to claim otherwise when you've been shown over and over and over that you are flat out WRONG. Jesus Christ, I've seen Tyrannosaurus Rexs with thinner skulls.
Click to expand...

Show me the source pal, or zip-it with the "it was a Republican idea" nonsense.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
And all of that doesn't change the fact that the mandate was a Republican idea...yaaawn...
Click to expand...

According to some newbie named Sgt Meowenstein on the internet...

Ok. I'm bored already.:coffeepap
 
iamitter said:
What are you trying to prove with this? Their minds aren't going to be changed. Republicans play the politics game so goddam well.
The healthcare bill isn't anything on the scale of Medicare part D. This bill was all essentially a Republican idea to begin with. The difference is, they got to demonize the democrats for passing it.
You can say thats them being assholes, but isn't that what politics in the end is? Knowing precisely how much of an asshole to be and not more.
Click to expand...

Slightly liberal, my ass, you are a full liberal in that you have selective memory on Medicare Part D as Democrats wanted a much bigger program than was enacted. Democrats didn't pass it, Repubicans did and it actually has cut costs. Medicare Part D put competition back into the program as well as incentive for people to shop and spend less. That has nothing to do with the public option mandate. We are still waiting for the legislation that the GOP authored that had the public option in it?
 
Ockham said:
Ya. Seriously.

You apparently do not quite understand the concept of "evidence". You writing someting and attributing it to someone is not evidence...
Click to expand...

Even documented evidence is questionable in many cases...

If you really want evidence, not just gotcha exchanges, both sides need to be attuned to the same subject and willing to accept the source of proof...

ricksfolly
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

iamitter said:
Why argue the count?
Click to expand...

the article you question specifically CONTRADICTS court counting

read it again

Obamacare supporters will say the judicial score is tied: Two federal courts have upheld Obamacare, and two have declared part of it unconstitutional. But two against two among federal district courts is not a tie.

District judges, whether state or federal, are risk-averse when interpreting the law. District judges preside over trial courts. They normally apply established law to the facts before them. Deciding questions of law is primarily the work of appellate courts.

Federal district judges, in particular, do not like being reversed by appellate judges. Frequent reversals are not good for one's ego or the reputation. Federal district judges naturally know, without consulting statistics, that very few federal statutes are declared unconstitutional.

So given the probabilities, it's much safer and easier for a lone federal district judge to declare federal statutes constitutional. Just leave it to the panel of three appellate judges to consider more carefully whether a statute is unconstitutional. That's what appellate judges are paid to do.

Because of this, the two decisions against Obamacare are much more significant than the two that upheld the legislation.
Click to expand...

link already pasted
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
And all of that doesn't change the fact that the mandate was a Republican idea
Click to expand...

regardless of whose idea it WAS, it is quite clear TODAY exactly whose platform it IS

live it, libs, love it, it's all YOURS

by senate RECONCILIATION, no less
 
Conservative said:
Slightly liberal, my ass, you are a full liberal in that you have selective memory on Medicare Part D as Democrats wanted a much bigger program than was enacted. Democrats didn't pass it, Repubicans did and it actually has cut costs. Medicare Part D put competition back into the program as well as incentive for people to shop and spend less. That has nothing to do with the public option mandate. We are still waiting for the legislation that the GOP authored that had the public option in it?
Click to expand...

1) I never mentioned the public option. I said this bill. The one that passed. It has essentially nothing in it that the republicans didn't support (at least the big ideas).

2) I would cut the government to tiny size. Including completely eliminating Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and cutting the military to less than 20% of what it is today. Full liberal, my ass. I only put that I'm slightly liberal because I'd rather vote for someone who is completely socially and fiscally liberal than someone someone who is conservative on both ends. ie. Social matters are more important to me. I'd rather have a few of my friends being able to get married than keeping that 4% increase in my paycheck. Do you understand my views now? I already told you this before - don't judge me when you don't know what I stand for.
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

The Prof said:
the article you question specifically CONTRADICTS court counting

read it again



link already pasted
Click to expand...

Thanks for snipping my response. I said why argue the count or how much it weighs because in the end, they don't matter anyway.
 
ricksfolly said:
Even documented evidence is questionable in many cases...

If you really want evidence, not just gotcha exchanges, both sides need to be attuned to the same subject and willing to accept the source of proof...

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

I'm totally willing to accept that it was initially a Republican idea... I just want to see someone other Meowmix over here show me a source. I'm not asking for a dissertation or thesis with footnotes -- I mean, if it's that hard to man up and produce it, the obvious answer is the whole claim is bull****. :shrug:
 
Zyphlin said:
as dishonest as going through threads repeatedly suggesting that Democrats support banning all guns.
Click to expand...

that's exactly true

nra backed dems, by the way, took a serious shellacking on tsunami tuesday---

stephanie herseth sandlin, tom perriello, betsy marky, harry teague, earl pomeroy, paul kanjorski, frank kratovil, john boccierri, rick boucher, glenn nye, zack space, travis childers, chet edwards, allen boyd...

off the top of my head

almost as bad as blue "pro lifers," suckerpunched by stupak

but most direly decimated were dixiecrats

in south carolina, georgia, florida, mississippi, alabama, louisiana, tennessee, kentucky, arkansas and texas there are today in the house 81 serving republicans and 27 dems, most of the latter in heavily african american districts

today's dinosaurs---southern dems, pro life dems, pro gun dems

there's just no space for them in the party of pelosi

prosit, progressives
 
well, we know who opposes the mandate NOW

it would include, apparently, claire mccaskill, ben nelson, bill nelson, jon tester, joe manchin, jiltin joe lieberman, combat boots webb

seeya on the floor
 
iamitter;1059260843]1) I never mentioned the public option. I said this bill. The one that passed. It has essentially nothing in it that the republicans didn't support (at least the big ideas).
Click to expand...

This bill has too many regulations in it and is a job killer. It does nothing to improve quality or quantity and that is going to put more pressure on the govt to create the public option as more and more people aren't going to be able to get service. ER's are overcrowded now and in MA where Obamacare got its roots ER usage is up huge as are costs. This bill is the first step towards a public option that the people will end up demanding.

2) I would cut the government to tiny size. Including completely eliminating Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and cutting the military to less than 20% of what it is today. Full liberal, my ass. I only put that I'm slightly liberal because I'd rather vote for someone who is completely socially and fiscally liberal than someone someone who is conservative on both ends. ie. Social matters are more important to me. I'd rather have a few of my friends being able to get married than keeping that 4% increase in my paycheck. Do you understand my views now? I already told you this before - don't judge me when you don't know what I stand for
Click to expand...

Ok, have no problem with cutting the size of govt. and have listed exactly what I would cut many times on various threads. Today we have a 3.8 trillion dollar govt that needs to be shredded to provide only the basics that our Founders envisioned, a small Central Govt. I would phase out SS, Medicare, and Medicaid however too much dependence has been created which is part of the reason I don't support Obamacare which will increase that dependence eventually.

I will never support marriage between anyone other than a man and a woman. That said it is a state responsibility not a Federal Responsibility and if your state supports it, so be it, mine never will. My state supports civil unions as did my company. Better be careful what you are pushing because if you create enough of an issue then this will go on the ballot as a Constitutional Amendment and it will pass, Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Thanks for your views, mine are mainly boiled down to two, a strong private sector growing economy and a strong national defense. Without both nothing else matters.
 
Conservative said:
This bill has too many regulations in it and is a job killer. It does nothing to improve quality or quantity and that is going to put more pressure on the govt to create the public option as more and more people aren't going to be able to get service. ER's are overcrowded now and in MA where Obamacare got its roots ER usage is up huge as are costs. This bill is the first step towards a public option that the people will end up demanding.



Ok, have no problem with cutting the size of govt. and have listed exactly what I would cut many times on various threads. Today we have a 3.8 trillion dollar govt that needs to be shredded to provide only the basics that our Founders envisioned, a small Central Govt. I would phase out SS, Medicare, and Medicaid however too much dependence has been created which is part of the reason I don't support Obamacare which will increase that dependence eventually.

I will never support marriage between anyone other than a man and a woman. That said it is a state responsibility not a Federal Responsibility and if your state supports it, so be it, mine never will. My state supports civil unions as did my company. Better be careful what you are pushing because if you create enough of an issue then this will go on the ballot as a Constitutional Amendment and it will pass, Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Thanks for your views, mine are mainly boiled down to two, a strong private sector growing economy and a strong national defense. Without both nothing else matters.
Click to expand...

I don't really support the premise behind the bill, but I realize that its impossible to force the private sector to accept people with preexisting conditions without increasing costs drastically for everyone else.

Marriage thing, it became a federal issue after DOMA. GM might not pass as a ballot now, but it will eventually. Every generation is always more socially liberal than the previous ones. My state doesn't allow GM marriage despite the fact that over 50% of the people support it. This isn't the thread for this discussion, in any case.

I always viewed natl. defense as hypocrisy, as most of it doesn't actually go to defending the people. We could easily survive on 1/4 of it without attacking other nations and spying on our own citizens.

Just as an FYI, our founders never supported a 'strong national defense'. They'd be more akin to the six guys defense, with 2 guys on boats on each coast and one on the border between mexico and one on the border between canada. Is mexico attacking us today Jake? Nope, I'm heading home. Ok, have a good night. Boom, national defense budget cut 99.9%. I don't support this exactly, but have anarcho-capitalist friends who do.
 
iamitter said:
I don't really support the premise behind the bill, but I realize that its impossible to force the private sector to accept people with preexisting conditions without increasing costs drastically for everyone else.

Marriage thing, it became a federal issue after DOMA. GM might not pass as a ballot now, but it will eventually. Every generation is always more socially liberal than the previous ones. My state doesn't allow GM marriage despite the fact that over 50% of the people support it. This isn't the thread for this discussion, in any case.
Click to expand...

Every generation gets less socially liberal as they age. Your assumption that each generation gets more socially liberal is not really supported because more and more socially liberal things happen and therefore opens people up to more state control in coming generations.

What I'm saying here, is if I'm socially liberal and so and so has already been done, its very clear to all that I will support something more socially liberal than what is in place. Government control and the people that support is in an avalanche. In order to keep working for social liberal goals its only logical that you have to get more and more in the same direction.
 
Last edited:
iamitter said:
I don't really support the premise behind the bill, but I realize that its impossible to force the private sector to accept people with preexisting conditions without increasing costs drastically for everyone else.

Marriage thing, it became a federal issue after DOMA. GM might not pass as a ballot now, but it will eventually. Every generation is always more socially liberal than the previous ones. My state doesn't allow GM marriage despite the fact that over 50% of the people support it. This isn't the thread for this discussion, in any case.

I always viewed natl. defense as hypocrisy, as most of it doesn't actually go to defending the people. We could easily survive on 1/4 of it without attacking other nations and spying on our own citizens.

Just as an FYI, our founders never supported a 'strong national defense'. They'd be more akin to the six guys defense, with 2 guys on boats on each coast and one on the border between mexico and one on the border between canada. Is mexico attacking us today Jake? Nope, I'm heading home. Ok, have a good night. Boom, national defense budget cut 99.9%. I don't support this exactly, but have anarcho-capitalist friends who do.
Click to expand...

Ok, have a good one, thanks for the civil discussion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom