• 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!

Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143:248]

re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Mycroft said:
Maybe things are different in Canada, but here in the US, our Constitution...from the day it was signed...dealt solely with preventing the federal government from denying certain specified rights. Now...if our people want the government to be prevented from denying any other rights, we have an amendment process. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say...or allow for...the government to force any rights...especially rights that are not mentioned...on the people. For example, the Constitution says the government cannot deny the right to free speech. Nowhere does it say that anyone is forced to engage in free speech. The government cannot deny anyone the right to bear arms. Nowhere does it say the government can force people to bear arms. And...nowhere does it mention heath care as being a right at all. If it did, it would only prevent the government from denying a right to health care. It won't force people to engage in health care.

Now...the Democrats have turned the Constitution on its head...have departed from the Constitution...by passing a LAW that forces people to, at least, buy health insurance. Health care is still not a right.
Click to expand...
Conscription certainly is a constitutional act of the govt, so yes, you can be forced to bear arms.

But this "forcing" is a misnomer, it is characterizing the govt as having to conscript medical workers.
The argument of a right to medical care is not an argument for said conscription.
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Michael66 said:
That's just silly. In any case, enrollment problems have nothing to do with whether it will work for millions of Americans who are going without. You must know that at least. Doesn't honesty mean anything to you?

Or is the honesty that's missing in fact because you don't want others to have affordable health care?
Click to expand...

I don't know why a person who wants people to have affordable health care would put in place a policy that drives up the costs of health care and needlessly complicates the process. It could be that they're lying about their intentions, so you just might be onto something. I was giving the benefit of the doubt, but if you want to call them liars, I'll go with it.
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Michael66 said:
In wealthy first world countries affordable and good health care is a right of 'all' the people.
Click to expand...

You don't have a right to force someone else to provide something to you. In a free country, we call that theft.
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

sangha said:
According to the constitution itself, you are wrong about it dealing solely with preventing the feds from denying certain rights



Securing the blessings of liberty is just one of several goals the constitution serves
Click to expand...

LOL!!

So...you think securing the blessings of liberty is some sort of blanket statement that'll allow the government to demand the people do anything it wants? I don't think so. I think that phrase means that the desire is to protect the people from the government...or any person...from taking away the blessings of liberty.

What does 'to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity' mean?

It means to guarantee to the people of the United States at that time, and to their descendents (their posterity) all of the advantages of freedom.
The question contains a small but significant error. It's "blessings" not "blessing." The entire clause is "...to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."
The blessings of liberty refers to all of the benefits that are afforded by having liberty. Free speech, the right to peacably assemble, freedom of religion, the right to own property, the right to travel freely within and between states, etc. These and many others are the blessings of liberty. It goes beyond the mere implication that liberty is a blessing.

read more at: What does 'to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity' mean
Click to expand...

Do you contend that, somehow, health care is a blessing of liberty?
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

AlabamaPaul said:
And through the Representatives elected to the House, it has shown that citizens do not want this...
Click to expand...
Citizens have been propagandized with falsehoods of what the ACA is. Opinion polls are not a reflection of knowing.
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

FederalRepublic said:
You don't have a right to force someone else to provide something to you. In a free country, we call that theft.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about taxation...or conscripting medical workers?
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Gimmesometruth said:
The state is mandated to care for its population, we mandated that we care for all of us.
Click to expand...

Keep repeating that line into the telescreen.
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Gimmesometruth said:
Conscription certainly is a constitutional act of the govt, so yes, you can be forced to bear arms.

But this "forcing" is a misnomer, it is characterizing the govt as having to conscript medical workers.
The argument of a right to medical care is not an argument for said conscription.
Click to expand...

Actually, conscription doesn't force one to bear arms. A person may refuse to bear arms even if conscripted...they were once called conscientious objectors and the military accommodated them.

"Forcing" has nothing to do with medical workers...but medical insurance consumers.
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

FederalRepublic said:
Keep repeating that line into the telescreen.
Click to expand...
Um, it is the polar opposite of a totalitarian state.

You didn't have to make your argument so false.
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Mycroft said:
Actually, conscription doesn't force one to bear arms. A person may refuse to bear arms even if conscripted...they were once called conscientious objectors and the military accommodated them.
Click to expand...
yes, they were "accommodated" in prisons. This "exception" argument is not countering the principle.

"Forcing" has nothing to do with medical workers...but medical insurance consumers.
Click to expand...
Well, if you are going that route, the SC dealt with that.
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Summerwind said:
Then how come others are paying or have paid for your police, your firemen, your roads, your electric grid, your dams, your military, your water system, your street lights, your childrens' schools and parks, ... you didn't provide all that individually. We all pay for the rights of all of us. For some reason though, being healthy has been determined not to be a right, but driving on paved roads is. Go figure.
Click to expand...

None of those things are rights either.
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Mycroft said:
LOL!!

So...you think securing the blessings of liberty is some sort of blanket statement that'll allow the government to demand the people do anything it wants? I don't think so. I think that phrase means that the desire is to protect the people from the government...or any person...from taking away the blessings of liberty.



Do you contend that, somehow, health care is a blessing of liberty?
Click to expand...

You claimed that the constitution dealt solely with one thing. I proved you were wrong by quoting from the constitution itself

Your attempt to divert attention from you foolish and easily refuted claims is a waste of time
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Gimmesometruth said:
yes, they were "accommodated" in prisons. This "exception" argument is not countering the principle.

Well, if you are going that route, the SC dealt with that.
Click to expand...

Again, you are pretty much wrong. During the Civil War and up to WWI, men could be imprisoned. Things changed after that and until the draft ended conscientious objectors were not imprisoned. So...your example of the government forcing men to bear arms hasn't been a reality for almost 100 years.

The Supreme Court did nothing to establish any right to health care.
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

trfjr said:
Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges | Fox News

so even with the dismal amount that were able to enroll that is even screwed up
so when are you liberal going to come to the inevitable conclusion this is not working it will never work and all your doing at this point is allowing your pride and your reluctance to admit failure get in the way of doing the right thing and that is repeal and replace. you rather see millions suffer so to keep from that realization that Obama care is a total unmitigated disaster
And you want to call the Tea Party terrorist and hostage takers?
Click to expand...

I miss the old days before Obamacare, when people always filled out their forms completely and accurately and the insurance companies never screwed up the paperwork
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

sangha said:
You claimed that the constitution dealt solely with one thing. I proved you were wrong by quoting from the constitution itself

Your attempt to divert attention from you foolish and easily refuted claims is a waste of time
Click to expand...

You proved me wrong??? How? By quoting the Preamble to the Constitution? That was no proof.

I proved you wrong by presenting an explanation of what that phrase in the Preamble means...and it doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

If my proof is so easily refuted, the do so. Otherwise, admit you were wrong...or just slink away.
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Mycroft said:
Again, you are pretty much wrong. During the Civil War and up to WWI, men could be imprisoned. Things changed after that and until the draft ended conscientious objectors were not imprisoned. So...your example of the government forcing men to bear arms hasn't been a reality for almost 100 years.
Click to expand...
FFS, dude, conscription was forcing citizens to bear arms and objector status was VERY limited. Beyond that, if you objected on the field, you could be executed. Your argument is completely ignoring the vast general principle.

The Supreme Court did nothing to establish any right to health care.
Click to expand...
Straw, your argument was that the forcing of medical insurance purchase (consuming) was unconstitutional. It is not.

Quit with the wormy argument.
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Mycroft said:
You proved me wrong??? How? By quoting the Preamble to the Constitution? That was no proof.

I proved you wrong by presenting an explanation of what that phrase in the Preamble means...and it doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

If my proof is so easily refuted, the do so. Otherwise, admit you were wrong...or just slink away.
Click to expand...

The Preamble clearly shows that the constitution has several goals, including more than one which covers the govt getting involved in health care
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

sangha said:
The Preamble clearly shows that the constitution has several goals, including more than one which covers the govt getting involved in health care
Click to expand...

Please specify which goals...and provide links supporting your contention.

After all, that's what I did.
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Gimmesometruth said:
FFS, dude, conscription was forcing citizens to bear arms and objector status was VERY limited. Beyond that, if you objected on the field, you could be executed. Your argument is completely ignoring the vast general principle.

Straw, your argument was that the forcing of medical insurance purchase (consuming) was unconstitutional. It is not.

Quit with the wormy argument.
Click to expand...

I never said it was unconstitutional. I said the Democrats turned the Constitution on its head by passing a law.

Come on, dude...at least read what I say before you respond to me.
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Mycroft said:
I never said it was unconstitutional. I said the Democrats turned the Constitution on its head by passing a law.

Come on, dude...at least read what I say before you respond to me.
Click to expand...
This is what you said:
Mycroft said:
"Forcing" has nothing to do with medical workers...but medical insurance consumers.
Click to expand...
Again, if you think that the constitution was turned upside down, then you are ignoring the ruling on the individual mandate.

You are still worming....and diverting from the point....but that is what one does when they have a losing argument.

Your debate and technique is a waste of time.
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Gimmesometruth said:
This is what you said:
Again, if you think that the constitution was turned upside down, then you are ignoring the ruling on the individual mandate.

You are still worming....and diverting from the point....but that is what one does when they have a losing argument.

Your debate and technique is a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Ummm....yes...I said forcing has nothing to do with medical workers, but medical insurance consumers. Is that statement incorrect?

And, in my opinion, the Constitution was stood on its head by the passage of the law. I said nothing about the Supreme Court's ruling. I said nothing about whether the law has been deemed constitutional.

Look...I get so many liberals...and some non-liberals...who respond to me based on something I didn't say. Please don't be one of them.
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Gimmesometruth said:
Are you talking about taxation...or conscripting medical workers?
Click to expand...

You can never have a right to a service that someone else provides, unless the providers of the service are slaves. Are you advocating slavery?
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Mycroft said:
Please specify which goals...and provide links supporting your contention.

After all, that's what I did.
Click to expand...

I've already posted the Preamble
 
re: Insurers reportedly receiving faulty data from ObamaCare exchanges [W:143]

Mycroft said:
I never said it was unconstitutional. I said the Democrats turned the Constitution on its head by passing a law.
Click to expand...

Because the constitution says nothing about passing laws!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom