• 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!

SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758, 1205]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652]

I'll post it again just for you.

"uninsured" does NOT mean can't get health care. The HRSA on-line finder has a low cost/no cost Federally funded Health clinics.
Again, you advocate for it....but you don't want that....you don't want fed health care.

If you want to expand this coverage to people above the income limits of the program.....GREAT. But you don't......so why bring it up?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Again it comes down to the fear that somebody else will benefit from your money. That has been the American way for generations and you are just coming to that realization now? It is sort of funny.
You show yourself again. You think just like any other thug holding people up and taking their wealth. It is sort of sad.
In addition to every other error you don't even get our history right. Have a nice day.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652]

What would Jesus do?
Clearly, Jesus would use the police power of government to coerce the public into subsidizing the lives of those with lesser means.

Did you not read the Bible?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652]

It's not surprising, Roberts is a neocon plant; Kennedy is just a slightly left moderate.

I figure he would of ruled in favor because of the utilitarian effect of the law, rather than the in spirit of the Constitution.
Seems I was wrong.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652]

He wouldn't rob peter to pay paul.

Depends on you mean by that. He would likely have us (believers) give to the common good, to help others.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

And you're helping them by making them buy something they couldn't afford in the first place?


First he told me the wonderful HC bill was going to help the "poorest of the poor", now he's realized these folks will stay on Medicare. It took me a while but he finally said the poorest of the poor weren't gonna get anything from this bill. They'll still be on the govt dole.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

First he told me the wonderful HC bill was going to help the "poorest of the poor", now he's realized these folks will stay on Medicare. It took me a while but he finally said the poorest of the poor weren't gonna get anything from this bill. They'll still be on the govt dole.

Where should the poorest of the poor be?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652]

No, not always. Before Madison v Marbury established precedent, even Jefferson did not think the court had the power. Quite simply, if you read the federalist, or any of Madison's writings of the time, the SCOTUS was not to be a "co-equal" branch of government, but rather a referee between the Executive and the Judiciary.

That aside, what this decision does is to make a new right for the federal government to tax private transactional inactivity.

Article 1, section 8: "Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"

Federalist papers where 1 or 2 guys opinion, not the law. Constitution = law.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652]

Depends on you mean by that. He would likely have us (believers) give to the common good, to help others.

By donation, not by theft.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652]

Depends on you mean by that. He would likely have us (believers) give to the common good, to help others.

And so you should, just as I do - on your own dime.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

First he told me the wonderful HC bill was going to help the "poorest of the poor", now he's realized these folks will stay on Medicare. It took me a while but he finally said the poorest of the poor weren't gonna get anything from this bill. They'll still be on the govt dole.

The good news is that the vast majority will benefit from the bill in many ways. That went right over your head I guess.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652]

By donation, not by theft.

There's no theft going on. And to the believer, it is a commandment and not a suggestion (contrary to popular sentiment).
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

The good news is that the vast majority will benefit from the bill in many ways. That went right over your head I guess.

Any actual data to back up such a claim?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652]

What "new power"? Roberts' decision was very narrow, and simply reaffirmed the federal government's power to levy a tax. That power has existed under our Constitution since, umm, always.

Which means Obamacare raised taxes. New taxes equals raised taxes....on the lower and low middle class.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652]

And so you should, just as I do - on your own dime.

I do. But that wasn't the question. The question was what would Jesus do?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652]

Article 1, section 8: "Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"

Federalist papers where 1 or 2 guys opinion, not the law. Constitution = law.

So. This has now been extended to mean that taxes may be punitive (something new) to punish private transactional inactivity.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652]

No, not always. Before Madison v Marbury established precedent, even Jefferson did not think the court had the power.

I was referring to the power to levy a tax. That is a power of Congress, not the Supreme Court. And it has always had that power; it's explicitly spelled out in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Quite simply, if you read the federalist, or any of Madison's writings of the time, the SCOTUS was not to be a "co-equal" branch of government, but rather a referee between the Executive and the Judiciary.

I assume you mean the executive and LEGISLATURE? Even if that's true it's a moot point, because both the legislature and the executive supported the Affordable Care Act. If they didn't, then the ACA wouldn't even exist and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That aside, what this decision does is to make a new right for the federal government to tax private transactional inactivity.

No, the Supreme Court merely affirmed that this falls within Congress' power to tax, much like it gives you a tax credit if you buy solar panels (i.e. taxing you if you don't buy them).

ARealConservative said:
Let’s not play dumb here. Nearly all constitutional scholars

Bloomberg surveyed 21 top legal scholars last week; 19 of them felt that the individual mandate was constitutional. As did 2 prominent conservative federal judges who actually heard the case, and are (were?) on the short list to be the Supreme Court picks for the next Republican president. As did the Republican-appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

(and nearly 75% of Americans polled)

I could give a damn whether the American people think something is constitutional. The American people do not have an informed opinion; most of them have never read the Constitution, and many of them don't even know what the Constitution does.

It is certainly a new use of power not previously used, and I think all you cheerleaders would be well served to wait and see how corporate ran government uses this new power in the future before waving the pom poms further.

If you're worried about a corporate-run government, then a public health care option and/or single-payer is still on the table. By all means, press your luck if you like. :lol:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652]

I do. But that wasn't the question. The question was what would Jesus do?

Well now, Jesus doesn't address the question - it was out of his mission, his wheelhouse. He does say we should render up to Ceaser what is Ceaser's.

And Kandahar, you were correct. Sorry, I did mean the Executive and the Judiciary. However, that was just a historical reference since the court has been a co-equal branch of government since they took the power through precedence with Madison v Marbury.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652]

Which means Obamacare raised taxes. New taxes equals raised taxes....on the lower and low middle class.

Only in the broadest of interpretations. If everyone buys insurance, there is no tax.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Where should the poorest of the poor be?

On the dole. But don't say the HC bill is going to help the poorest of the poor, when we know that isn't true.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652]

Bloomberg surveyed 21 top legal scholars last week; 19 of them felt that the individual mandate was constitutional. As did 2 prominent conservative federal judges who actually heard the case, and are (were?) on the short list to be the Supreme Court picks for the next Republican president. As did the Republican-appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

If I read your article correctly, only 8 of the 21 experts felt the individual mandate would be upheld.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652]

There's no theft going on. And to the believer, it is a commandment and not a suggestion (contrary to popular sentiment).

Tax is legalized governmental theft. Nothng more.

Jesus would never force someone to do something they didn't want to. The end, period. it's idiotic to bring Jesus into this when its obvious you know jack **** about anything related to him.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

On the dole. But don't say the HC bill is going to help the poorest of the poor, when we know that isn't true.

OK. But I just wanted to make sure you weren't expecting something else. However, I think he was always speaking of the working poor, who are most needy and who likely will be helped the most.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom