• 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

Erod said:
Even Sotomayor seems to be struggling with this (though I don't for a second think she'll vote to strike it down).

Every one of those justices knows this will change the Constitution entirely, as well as the government's power over people. In effect, the Constitution will be ruled to be null and void.
Click to expand...

Yup, they do know it will change everything. IMHO, some of those judges want to change everything.
 
buck said:
Man kids die violently in their 20's (car accidents, shootings, etc). As we all know, those are the healthiest people and least likely to use medical care (more likely to have never seen a doctor). However, clearly, some people will be forced by government to engage in commerce that otherwise would not be. I have no idea of the numbers.

Just out of curiosity, do you say the same thing about voter ID laws? The number that have no way of ever obtaining a free ID are statistically insignifcant so that they don't matter in what hte government does?
Click to expand...

You do know that an ambulance comes to get them often as well. No, they cannot opt out. You trying to side step the point. The risk is there for all and no one is immune to that risk, can say with certainty that they will never use health care. So, effectively, all are already engaged in the commerce.

As for voter id, I have to produce one. We don't seem to have a problem. So I'm not sure I have anything for you on that.
 
Boo Radley said:
You do know that an ambulance comes to get them often as well. No, they cannot opt out. You trying to side step the point. The risk is there for all and no one is immune to that risk, can say with certainty that they will never use health care. So, effectively, all are already engaged in the commerce.
Click to expand...

That's moronic. Stark, slobbering idiocy.
 
Harshaw said:
That's moronic. Stark, slobbering idiocy.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input, but I suspect that is because you are too invested in your ideology to consider it. No one can opt out.
 
Boo Radley said:
Thanks for your input, but I suspect that is because you are too invested in your ideology to consider it.
Click to expand...

No, I suspect this is projection, and one needs to be blood-poison-level invested in YOUR ideology in order to see it.

You are not engaged in commerce unless you are engaged in commerce. To say otherwise is the aforementioned stark, slobbering idiocy.
 
AdamT said:
Wow, what a pathetic rejoinder.
Click to expand...

It's all that was required of such a stupid thing to day.

None of us can opt out of death, either. So, for the same practical purposes, we're all already dead. So why help anyone to live when they're already dead? Why bother with anything, for that matter? That's exactly the same "reasoning," to a T.

If you disagree, put that on the list of things you need to explain why it's different.
 
Harshaw said:
That's moronic. Stark, slobbering idiocy.
Click to expand...
We all know if someone is hurt in a car wreck and is unconscious they will be taken to a hospital ER. And once there the doctors will treat them.

Would you like those laws changed as well? Should we check the injured at the accident site to make sure they're covered by health insurance or that their bank account is big enough to cover expenses before loading them into the ambulance?
 
Harshaw said:
No, I suspect this is projection, and one needs to be blood-poison-level invested in YOUR ideology in order to see it.

You are not engaged in commerce unless you are engaged in commerce. To say otherwise is the aforementioned stark, slobbering idiocy.
Click to expand...

Then show how people opt of health care. As uninsured people do in fact get hurt, get seriously ill, and end up being treated, which is commerce, and we do pay for them, which is commerce, and that they cannot know in advance who will be so unlucky, in effect (meaning what happens in the real world), it will happen often enough to say they are already engaged. We have to plan for them, have the available service, knowing they won't be able to pay for it. Understand the argument before you respond. ;)
 
MoSurveyor said:
We all know if someone is hurt in a car wreck and is unconscious they will be taken to a hospital ER. And once there the doctors will treat them.

Would you like those laws changed as well? Should we check the injured at the accident site to make sure they're covered by health insurance or that their bank account is big enough to cover expenses before loading them into the ambulance?
Click to expand...

That is the only way to effectively have the ability to opt out. We have to have laws that allows treatment, emergent treatment to be refused.
 
MoSurveyor said:
We all know if someone is hurt in a car wreck and is unconscious they will be taken to a hospital ER. And once there the doctors will treat them.

Would you like those laws changed as well? Should we check the injured at the accident site to make sure they're covered by health insurance or that their bank account is big enough to cover expenses before loading them into the ambulance?
Click to expand...

These questions have nothing to do with what I said about Boo Radley's profoundly stupid comment.
 
Boo Radley said:
Then show how people opt of health care. As uninsured people do in fact get hurt, get seriously ill, and end up being treated, which is commerce, and we do pay for them, which is commerce, and that they cannot know in advance who will be so unlucky, in effect (meaning what happens in the real world), it will happen often enough to say they are already engaged. We have to plan for them, have the available service, knowing they won't be able to pay for it. Understand the argument before you respond. ;)
Click to expand...

I got it fine. It's a stupid argument, as I demonstrated with my example of "opting out" of death.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, you don't seem to as evidenced above.
Click to expand...

IS TOO! IS NOT!!! IS TOO!!!

Explain how my example of opting out of death is different.
 
AdamT said:
It's amazing how many people are DETERMINED that the law is evil ... without having a clue what's in it. Now maybe Nancy Pelosi's comment starts to make sense?

What the bill does, primarily, is extend health insurance to 30 million Americans who don't have it. It doesn't force anyone who can't afford it to buy insurance. But it does attempt to force people who CAN afford it to buy insurance. The bill provides subsidies, on a sliding income scale, for those who can't afford to buy it on their own.
Click to expand...

That would be the part people have a problem with. How dare Obama and his cronies tell me where and how I have to spend my hard earned money AFTER they gouge the hell out of me on April 15th.

Obama should be in prison.
 
Anyone but me notice that 99.9% of the lefts arguments FOR the mandate, have nothing to do with the Constitution. It all goes back to 'fairness' and other nonsense.
 
Harshaw said:
IS TOO! IS NOT!!! IS TOO!!!

Explain how my example of opting out of death is different.
Click to expand...

It's really far too simple. I don't have to pay for your death. Your death doesn't run up my costs of dying. There is no real commerce involved. Here, I can bury you in the back yard. I promise I'll give your family a good deal. ;)

With health care, that cost is passed on. Those who are responsible pay for those who guess wrong. So, your irresponsibility is passed on to others.
 
Harshaw said:
It's all that was required of such a stupid thing to day.

None of us can opt out of death, either. So, for the same practical purposes, we're all already dead. So why help anyone to live when they're already dead? Why bother with anything, for that matter? That's exactly the same "reasoning," to a T.

If you disagree, put that on the list of things you need to explain why it's different.
Click to expand...

Now that is a truly idiotic response. You're on a roll. The fact that death is inevitable has absolutely nothing to do with markets, which is the context of the health insurance discussion.
 
Arbo said:
Anyone but me notice that 99.9% of the lefts arguments FOR the mandate, have nothing to do with the Constitution. It all goes back to 'fairness' and other nonsense.
Click to expand...

At least many of them tend to mistake "good idea" (or their perception of it) as being the same as "constitutional."
 
Arbo said:
Anyone but me notice that 99.9% of the lefts arguments FOR the mandate, have nothing to do with the Constitution. It all goes back to 'fairness' and other nonsense.
Click to expand...

Most of us know that issue will be settled, soon.
 
Arbo said:
Anyone but me notice that 99.9% of the lefts arguments FOR the mandate, have nothing to do with the Constitution. It all goes back to 'fairness' and other nonsense.
Click to expand...

Anyone but me forget that the mandate was originally a conservative proposal that was justified on the basis of personal responsibility?
 
Harshaw said:
IS TOO! IS NOT!!! IS TOO!!!

Explain how my example of opting out of death is different.
Click to expand...
In medical emergencies time is crucial.

At death there's plenty of time to decide what your finances are so that a rational decision on whether you get the metal or pine coffin and a marble or limestone marker can be made. Should we wait a day or two after an accident to do the same for the injured so we can figure out if they get the bandage or the boot?
 
dontworrybehappy said:
That would be the part people have a problem with. How dare Obama and his cronies tell me where and how I have to spend my hard earned money AFTER they gouge the hell out of me on April 15th.

Obama should be in prison.
Click to expand...

Damn you Heritage Foundantion, and Newt Gingrich, and Senator Grassley, and the dozens of other prominent conservative politicians who foisted this mandate upon us!!
 
SypherAL said:
Also, considering you probably dont know the definition of regulate is, I will be kind enough to give you an exact definition.

reg·u·late/ˈregyəˌlāt/

Verb:

Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.


Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

Synonyms:
adjust - control - arrange - settle - order - regularize



anymore questions my fellow chess board pawns? :) Is this not a written law in your beloved constitution?
Click to expand...

Webster's Dictionary 1828:

REG'ULATE, v.t.


1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.

2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.

3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.
Click to expand...

Here's something closer to the original definition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom