• 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

j-mac said:
Oh, "actual knowledge"....I see. So in essence, what you are really saying here is that those who disagree with your interpretation of this are somehow just stupid, don't have knowledge enough to form the "right" opinion of it, eh?

pretty arrogant Joe.

j-mac
Click to expand...

I don't pretend I know as much as those who study law, but I suppose you know more than they do. So, there's no reason for you to even consider the possibility that they know more than you and ruled appropriately. And I'm arrogant?

:lamo :lamo :lamo

:coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't pretend I know as much as those who study law...
Click to expand...

Sure about that?

but I suppose you know more than they do.
Click to expand...

Wow, a strawman, coupled with projection....Bravo Joe....

So, there's no reason for you to even consider the possibility that they know more than you and ruled appropriately.
Click to expand...

So then are you willing to drop your argument because the Judge ruled against this mandate in the law? No, so why do you expect me to roll over when you won't?

And I'm arrogant?
Click to expand...


Hmmmm....let's see....

:lamo:lamo:lamo

:coffeepap
Click to expand...

Yes. Also quite VoR like lately.

j-mac
 
The mandate isn't over yet j. But I haven't spoken on that. I've only said it will play itself out. That would be your strawman I guess. And exactly which one of us attacking the person? I wonder who I could compare you too?

:coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
The mandate isn't over yet j.
Click to expand...

Ah, but a serious blow has been dealt. Only two more steps, and the administration seems rather frightened at the prospect.

But I haven't spoken on that.
Click to expand...

No, ofcourse not. Why would you...That would mean you actually have to address the topic.

I've only said it will play itself out.
Click to expand...

Well that is just brilliant......You sure you ain't the smartest person in the world?

That would be your strawman I guess.
Click to expand...

How's that?

And exactly which one of us attacking the person?
Click to expand...

I'd say we both are to an extent.

I wonder who I could compare you too?
Click to expand...

I don't know who you have in mind, but I'd bet they are extraordinary individuals.

j-mac
 
J, no matter why I don't address something, you can't pretend to speak for me. The issue with the mandate isn't settled. We'll see what happens.

Your strawman is you picking a fight that isn't there. I haven't denounced the judge or made a statement concerning law. From the begining I've said the courts will work it out. You throwing out something as if I had denounced the judge is a strawman.

And j, it isn't me who claims to be an expert at everything. But you can continue to pretned otherwise if it helps you. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
J, no matter why I don't address something, you can't pretend to speak for me. The issue with the mandate isn't settled. We'll see what happens..
Click to expand...

I would never pretend to speak for you old friend....Why won't you address it though?

Your strawman is you picking a fight that isn't there.
Click to expand...

Where's that? I thought we were discussing it?

I haven't denounced the judge or made a statement concerning law. From the begining I've said the courts will work it out.
Click to expand...

So you are completely neutral on the subject?

You throwing out something as if I had denounced the judge is a strawman.
Click to expand...

where'd I do that, can you bring it up?

And j, it isn't me who claims to be an expert at everything. But you can continue to pretned otherwise if it helps you.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear that you don't really think that you are the be all, end all, but I gotta tell ya Joe, your style of argument sometimes comes off as the opposite. Especially when you constantly use that passive/aggressive style of calling those that disagree with you as uninformed, or ignorant. Think you could address that? Oh, and the VoR comment was directed directly at your little smiley that you have adopted, and use in the context of dismissal of your opponents opinion. It is quite frustrating, and one of the reasons that you argued to unfairly sanction VoR in the past is it not? Deny that and I will know what extent you are subject to mistruth.

j-mac
 
I am completely unusre of the law, so I'll let the courts settle it. As I'm not knowledgable and both arguments make sense to me, I simply think it is best to let it be settled in the courts.

Now, as for the issue, you can't have insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions and children without having a method for covering that expense. the public option was the beter choice, but absent that, the next option is the mandate. As I keep saying, the general public has a real disconnect ehre, wanting those elelmnts, but not accepting anything that would help cover the cost. But that's another issue.

As for my style, I merely state things directly, hoping it will eliminate misunderstandings. That has not always been successful, though I sometimes think people misunderstand on purpose. And when I deal with people who throw out silly things like the government is making me eat what I don't want to eat, or who make wild leaps in logic, . . . well, . . . I answer silliness with silliness sometimes.
 
Boo Radley said:
I am completely unusre of the law, so I'll let the courts settle it. As I'm not knowledgable and both arguments make sense to me, I simply think it is best to let it be settled in the courts.
Click to expand...

And if the courts rule against your preferred choice of a mandate, then you will be fine with that?

Ok.

Now, as for the issue, you can't have insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions and children without having a method for covering that expense. the public option was the beter choice, but absent that, the next option is the mandate. As I keep saying, the general public has a real disconnect ehre, wanting those elelmnts, but not accepting anything that would help cover the cost. But that's another issue.
Click to expand...

Yes, it can not be done without straying from constitutional constraints and imposing it.

As for my style, I merely state things directly, hoping it will eliminate misunderstandings. That has not always been successful, though I sometimes think people misunderstand on purpose. And when I deal with people who throw out silly things like the government is making me eat what I don't want to eat, or who make wild leaps in logic, . . . well, . . . I answer silliness with silliness sometimes.
Click to expand...


Encroachment on liberty is not always plain and clear. sometimes you have to look at the little bites, instead of the whole plate, fore if you don't by the time you see it, it is then too late.

j-mac
 
The only way this becomes legal is if they convert this into a healthcare TAX. As currently structured, it's not constitutional. It's like forcing people to buy Jets season tickets. You can't do it.

So who here wants to see another item under Medicare and FICA on their checkstub? Say, about 8-10 percent?
 
Erod said:
The only way this becomes legal is if they convert this into a healthcare TAX. As currently structured, it's not constitutional. It's like forcing people to buy Jets season tickets. You can't do it.

So who here wants to see another item under Medicare and FICA on their checkstub? Say, about 8-10 percent?
Click to expand...

thank you,

and in addition to this extra deduction from our paycheck, we still have to buy our own healthcare out of whats left.
And I am already paying 8k a year for that, cash, right off the top.

how this is fair or will somehow "eventually" benefit me too is beyond me.
 
Erod said:
The only way this becomes legal is if they convert this into a healthcare TAX. As currently structured, it's not constitutional. It's like forcing people to buy Jets season tickets. You can't do it.

So who here wants to see another item under Medicare and FICA on their checkstub? Say, about 8-10 percent?
Click to expand...

Let's assume the SCOTUS upholds the healthcare reform and let's assume the courts see it as a tax and there are no issues with the commerce act. The House then defunds the bill because they hold the purse strings, and it dies on the vine. There are so many ways to kill this, that the legal method is just one way. What liberals have to get used to knowing is, the abortion named "Affordable Health Care Act" of 2010 will not be fully enacted and will not see the light of day after January 5th 2011. It's going to either die and be replaced or there will be attempts to fix it. If it's veto'd by the President, it will be removed or die from no funding. So Obama spent a year pushing an unpopular bill which finally was passed to all the yippee's of the progressive left - until we find out it actually RAISES costs instead of cutting them, and we find out that hundreds of exemptions are divvied out to all the President's pets - ie., unions. It was a steaming pile of ****, and it's still a steaming pile of ****, but thankfully, the people will not have to smell it all that longer.
 
shades said:
thank you,

and in addition to this extra deduction from our paycheck, we still have to buy our own healthcare out of whats left.
And I am already paying 8k a year for that, cash, right off the top.

how this is fair or will somehow "eventually" benefit me too is beyond me.
Click to expand...

It takes a lot of money to give couch potatoes the heart transplants they need.
 
j-mac said:
And if the courts rule against your preferred choice of a mandate, then you will be fine with that?

Ok.
Click to expand...

Do? I will do nothing. But I would prefer the public option come back into play.


Yes, it can not be done without straying from constitutional constraints and imposing it.
Click to expand...

Not sure that is true.




Encroachment on liberty is not always plain and clear. sometimes you have to look at the little bites, instead of the whole plate, fore if you don't by the time you see it, it is then too late.

j-mac
Click to expand...

No one's liberty has been encroached on. Scare tactic do work on some, true, but that don't make them factually correct. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Some live in Iowa. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

They may live in Iowa, but they don't work there anymore, at least not as judges. All three that ruled in favor of gay marriage that were up for reelection got booted out of office by the people.
 
Gill said:
They may live in Iowa, but they don't work there anymore, at least not as judges. All three that ruled in favor of gay marriage that were up for reelection got booted out of office by the people.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if they followed the law, and the next group also follow the law, then what? We're saying we don't want judges to follow the law?
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, but if they followed the law, and the next group also follow the law, then what? We're saying we don't want judges to follow the law?
Click to expand...

Interpretation of the law is subjective in many cases. The people of Iowa obviously didn't like the judges' interpretation and told them so with their vote.
 
VanceMack said:
Ya'dathunk that since this is so cut and dried this would have been done...what...230 years ago or so...
Click to expand...

A lot of decisions have been made over the years that were not decided 230 years ago. Stay tuned for more in the future.
 
Gill said:
Interpretation of the law is subjective in many cases. The people of Iowa obviously didn't like the judges' interpretation and told them so with their vote.
Click to expand...

I wish those who complain of activist judges would remember that, but there is some objectivity to it as well, and when judge after judge after judge rules the same way, we have to conclude that there is something to the legal point. And what the people are doing in iowa is really saying screw the law. That's not a positive development.
 
Boo Radley said:
I wish those who complain of activist judges would remember that, but there is some objectivity to it as well, and when judge after judge after judge rules the same way, we have to conclude that there is something to the legal point. And what the people are doing in iowa is really saying screw the law. That's not a positive development.
Click to expand...

No, actually they are saying screw the judges that rule against their personal beliefs.
 
Gill said:
No, actually they are saying screw the judges that rule against their personal beliefs.
Click to expand...

So, the law has to be ignored if it doesn't match their personal beliefs? We don't need judges then. We can just take a poll.
 
Boo Radley said:
So, the law has to be ignored if it doesn't match their personal beliefs? We don't need judges then. We can just take a poll.
Click to expand...

Who's ignoring a law ?? The law in Iowa still stands. The judges that made the law (I thought representatives were supposed to make law) are no longer in business.

Do you believe the people don't have the right to vote people in or out of office that they disagree with??? In case you forgot, this is still a representative democracy.
 
The founding fathers had no idea that one day the Constitution would one day be used to decide if Jefferson could marry Washington.

They did, as genius as they were, know that it would solve the inequities of slavery eventually.

Gay marriage might as well have been UFOs or Sasquatch.
 
Erod said:
The founding fathers had no idea that one day the Constitution would one day be used to decide if Jefferson could marry Washington.

They did, as genius as they were, know that it would solve the inequities of slavery eventually.

Gay marriage might as well have been UFOs or Sasquatch.
Click to expand...

So? They had no idea there would planes either, or nuclear bombs. Life doesn't stand still. Nor are we obligated to hold ALL the same beliefs they held. Some actually believed in slavery, remember? Only some saw that it would one day end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom