ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Woodruff]

Today is a victory for America.

Do you really believe this?

This health care law requires people, even unemployed, to have health insurance or get fined and go to jail. If they don't have the money for the insurance, then do they have money to pay a fine?

Incorrect. It only requires those who CAN AFFORD to buy it to do so. Please see my synopsis of the bill earlier in this thread.

[Woodruff]

Allow me to quote you, Night Strike, as an opening remark to my response:

Are you sure you actually know what the Constitution says? In fact, I think it clearly states in Article I that the Congress is responsible for setting rules of naturalization, not the executive branch. In fact, Article II actually states that the president is to faithfully execute the laws of the nation, which means he has to actually carry out the laws the Congress has passed and he or another president has signed.

Now, I'm curious...do you know what Article III states?

It establishes the Supreme Court. However, 5 Justices refused to look at the rest of the Constitution and chose to uphold a clearly unconstitutional mandate as a TAX. When every single politicians said it was not a tax and the law itself never said the mandate was a tax.

Ah, the Supreme Court refused to look at the rest of the Constitution. I'm sure that's it, Night Strike. There's not a possibility that they know the Constitution better than you do, of course?

How often does the Supreme Court vote unanimously?

You seem to be missing the point of my sarcasm.

[Woodruff]

Allow me to quote you, Night Strike, as an opening remark to my response:

Are you sure you actually know what the Constitution says? In fact, I think it clearly states in Article I that the Congress is responsible for setting rules of naturalization, not the executive branch. In fact, Article II actually states that the president is to faithfully execute the laws of the nation, which means he has to actually carry out the laws the Congress has passed and he or another president has signed.

Now, I'm curious...do you know what Article III states?

It establishes the Supreme Court. However, 5 Justices refused to look at the rest of the Constitution and chose to uphold a clearly unconstitutional mandate as a TAX. When every single politicians said it was not a tax and the law itself never said the mandate was a tax.

Ah, the Supreme Court refused to look at the rest of the Constitution. I'm sure that's it, Night Strike. There's not a possibility that they know the Constitution better than you do, of course?

Four justices voted to strike down the ENTIRE law. They understood that the government could not force you to take an action against your will simply because you exist. Roberts is a coward.

Ah, only those Justices who ruled the way you wanted them to actually understand the Constitution. I'm sure that's it, Night Strike. There's not a possibilitity that you could be wrong, of course.

[kentington]

Today is a victory for America.

Do you really believe this?

This health care law requires people, even unemployed, to have health insurance or get fined and go to jail. If they don't have the money for the insurance, then do they have money to pay a fine?

Incorrect. It only requires those who CAN AFFORD to buy it to do so. Please see my synopsis of the bill earlier in this thread.

Really? I admit I have not read the long bill, but I don't remember them mentioning it being provided when they were introducing the law. If so, please ignore that argument and just insert a freedom, privacy, or some other argument that is better and more valid than my previous one. Thank you all.

[Night Strike]

Ah, only those Justices who ruled the way you wanted them to actually understand the Constitution. I'm sure that's it, Night Strike. There's not a possibilitity that you could be wrong, of course.

There is and always has been a correct interpretation of the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution nor in the writings of the Founding Fathers does it give the federal government to force you to do an action. This court has decided that the government can do that anyway. They are flat out wrong. This will be the Dred Scott case of our generation.

[AndyDufresne]

How often does the Supreme Court vote unanimously?

According to this scholarly research article about Unanimous Decision:

"About 30 percent of the Court’s orally argued decisions in the 1946–2009 period were decided unanimously."

Additionally, here is a semi interesting table from the article:




--Andy

[kentington]

Allow me to quote you, Night Strike, as an opening remark to my response:

Are you sure you actually know what the Constitution says? In fact, I think it clearly states in Article I that the Congress is responsible for setting rules of naturalization, not the executive branch. In fact, Article II actually states that the president is to faithfully execute the laws of the nation, which means he has to actually carry out the laws the Congress has passed and he or another president has signed.

Now, I'm curious...do you know what Article III states?

It establishes the Supreme Court. However, 5 Justices refused to look at the rest of the Constitution and chose to uphold a clearly unconstitutional mandate as a TAX. When every single politicians said it was not a tax and the law itself never said the mandate was a tax.

Ah, the Supreme Court refused to look at the rest of the Constitution. I'm sure that's it, Night Strike. There's not a possibility that they know the Constitution better than you do, of course?

How often does the Supreme Court vote unanimously?

You seem to be missing the point of my sarcasm.

Honestly, it just seemed like you were messing with him a bit.
Dang Andy thanks. That is a small margin, but honestly more than I thought it would be.

Regardless of their voting and what not.
Do you believe it is constitutional, Woodruff?

[Woodruff]

Today is a victory for America.

Do you really believe this?

This health care law requires people, even unemployed, to have health insurance or get fined and go to jail. If they don't have the money for the insurance, then do they have money to pay a fine?

Incorrect. It only requires those who CAN AFFORD to buy it to do so. Please see my synopsis of the bill earlier in this thread.

Really? I admit I have not read the long bill, but I don't remember them mentioning it being provided when they were introducing the law. If so, please ignore that argument and just insert a freedom, privacy, or some other argument that is better and more valid than my previous one. Thank you all.

I strongly encourage you to read this, in order to be informed:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=173034&p=3787438&hilit=egregiously+limited#p3787438

[GreecePwns]

Still the best "basis for interaction between citizens and government," Night Strike?

It's the Constitution itself that makes this happen, don't you realize? If the Constitution clearly stated what was constitutional and not (and could be amended to do so), and didn't rely on 9 clearly political figures to make decisions, wouldn't all of this be prevented?

You know there is no correct interpretation of the Constitution because the writers of the document did this intentionally, right? They were flawed men who wrote a flawed document. Admit it.

[Woodruff]

Ah, only those Justices who ruled the way you wanted them to actually understand the Constitution. I'm sure that's it, Night Strike. There's not a possibilitity that you could be wrong, of course.

There is and always has been a correct interpretation of the Constitution.

And in your mind, that seems to always somehow align with your social beliefs. Fascinating, that.

[Woodruff]

Still the best "basis for interaction between citizens and government," Night Strike?

It's the Constitution itself that makes this happen, don't you realize? If the Constitution clearly stated what was constitutional and not (and could be amended to do so), and didn't rely on 9 clearly political figures to make decisions, wouldn't all of this be prevented?

You know there is no correct interpretation of the Constitution because the writers of the document did this intentionally, right? They were flawed men who wrote a flawed document. Admit it.

Night Strike is a strict Constitutionalist. Except when it doesn't suit his social preferences.

[Neoteny]

Gobama!

Alexander/Obama 2012!

[Night Strike]

Ah, only those Justices who ruled the way you wanted them to actually understand the Constitution. I'm sure that's it, Night Strike. There's not a possibilitity that you could be wrong, of course.

There is and always has been a correct interpretation of the Constitution.

And in your mind, that seems to always somehow align with your social beliefs. Fascinating, that.

That's because I always work to make sure my political beliefs align with the Constitution. It doesn't work the other way around. However, that other way is the way liberals have always interpreted the Constitution: to change its meaning to make it appear to align with them.

[Woodruff]

Ah, only those Justices who ruled the way you wanted them to actually understand the Constitution. I'm sure that's it, Night Strike. There's not a possibilitity that you could be wrong, of course.

There is and always has been a correct interpretation of the Constitution.

And in your mind, that seems to always somehow align with your social beliefs. Fascinating, that.

That's because I always work to make sure my political beliefs align with the Constitution. It doesn't work the other way around. However, that other way is the way liberals have always interpreted the Constitution: to change its meaning to make it appear to align with them.

Yes, liberals couldn't possibly understand nor respect the Constitution. Only conservatives do that.

Still not up on that self-reflecting thing, are you?

[rockfist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW1HYCdP-ZU&feature=related

[AndyDufresne]

Yes, liberals couldn't possibly understand nor respect the Constitution. Only conservatives do that.

Still not up on that self-reflecting thing, are you?

I periodically use my Constitution toilet paper.




--Andy

[patches70]

The courts call it a tax.
Obama insisted that it wasn't a tax. Obama had to say it wasn't a tax, because he promised he wouldn't raise taxes on the "middle class" let alone raise taxes for poor people. Well, guess what, it's official, Obama certainly did raise taxes on everyone, including the so called middle class.



I'm laughing, actually. First, for the conservatives, who through narrow eyes see only sources that agree with their point of view and why this ruling may have come at such a surprise. You see, through media, we all get lied to. Conservative, liberal, Dem or Rep, screens are pulled over our eyes so that we may not see clearly.

I'm laughing at the liberals who embrace with joy this decision. I laugh because they are joyous now, but come later, when the bill comes, there won't be any laughing. I'm laughing because in their effort to "solve" the health care problems, they've just unleashed a whole slew of brand new problems that will require at the very least, a lot more taken from them by government. For your own good of course.

I'm laughing at the Libertarians because they see this for what it really is and still no one else seems to see or care. This is an example of pure government coercion, one of the primary ways that tyranny creeps into society. Right in front of everyone's eyes. "Buy this, or else" and is upheld by the SCOTUS. Hilarious. Resist the "tax" and be jailed. Resist arrest and be shot. It sucks, because after you are shot by government agents you won't have any health insurance because you tried to resist being forced to buy something you wouldn't have needed at that time, save for being shot by government forces that is.

Woodruff is quite correct, without the individual mandate the entire Obamacare is worthless. Like all things though, this will help some but won't help others at all and will instead cause great pains. Such is the business of "solving problems". Such societal problems cannot be simply "solved", only trade offs enacted.
Few can truly see the costs and effects of this latest rounds of trade offs.

We get what we deserve.

[Neoteny]

Next on the agenda: socializing the economy. Tomorrow, THE WORLD!

[Night Strike]

Ah, only those Justices who ruled the way you wanted them to actually understand the Constitution. I'm sure that's it, Night Strike. There's not a possibilitity that you could be wrong, of course.

There is and always has been a correct interpretation of the Constitution.

And in your mind, that seems to always somehow align with your social beliefs. Fascinating, that.

That's because I always work to make sure my political beliefs align with the Constitution. It doesn't work the other way around. However, that other way is the way liberals have always interpreted the Constitution: to change its meaning to make it appear to align with them.

Yes, liberals couldn't possibly understand nor respect the Constitution. Only conservatives do that.

Still not up on that self-reflecting thing, are you?

Liberals are the ones who believe in a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution and outright reject any "original intent" arguments. Those "original intent" arguments are the TRUELY correct interpretations of the Constitution. This unrestricted power to tax individual inactions was never intended by the writers of the Constitution.

As an addendum, Obamacare would have NEVER passed if Obama and his democrats had not LIED to the American people. They claimed it was in no way a tax, yet that is all it is. The government can now tax you to force you to do anything. You can be taxed if you don't work out, if you eat the wrong foods, if the government needs to bailout certain businesses, and whatever else the government decides you must do. Until this law is repealed and all future laws based on this ruling are blocked, the government will control your life.

[kentington]

Today is a victory for America.

Do you really believe this?

This health care law requires people, even unemployed, to have health insurance or get fined and go to jail. If they don't have the money for the insurance, then do they have money to pay a fine?

Incorrect. It only requires those who CAN AFFORD to buy it to do so. Please see my synopsis of the bill earlier in this thread.

Really? I admit I have not read the long bill, but I don't remember them mentioning it being provided when they were introducing the law. If so, please ignore that argument and just insert a freedom, privacy, or some other argument that is better and more valid than my previous one. Thank you all.

I strongly encourage you to read this, in order to be informed:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=173034&p=3787438&hilit=egregiously+limited#p3787438

Ok Woodruff. I read that whole post. While reading it I tried to pretend that somebody I actually liked came up with the idea, this is important because I can be bias that way.
I see a few parts of the plan that will really harm the price and advancement of health care in general.
My favorite part of the bill:
10% tax on tanning salons.
Did you know that women who go to tanning salons have a 70% greater chance of getting cancer?

[Phatscotty]

The courts call it a tax.
Obama insisted that it wasn't a tax. Obama had to say it wasn't a tax, because he promised he wouldn't raise taxes on the "middle class" let alone raise taxes for poor people. Well, guess what, it's official, Obama certainly did raise taxes on everyone, including the so called middle class.



I'm laughing, actually. First, for the conservatives, who through narrow eyes see only sources that agree with their point of view and why this ruling may have come at such a surprise. You see, through media, we all get lied to. Conservative, liberal, Dem or Rep, screens are pulled over our eyes so that we may not see clearly.

I'm laughing at the liberals who embrace with joy this decision. I laugh because they are joyous now, but come later, when the bill comes, there won't be any laughing. I'm laughing because in their effort to "solve" the health care problems, they've just unleashed a whole slew of brand new problems that will require at the very least, a lot more taken from them by government. For your own good of course.

I'm laughing at the Libertarians because they see this for what it really is and still no one else seems to see or care. This is an example of pure government coercion, one of the primary ways that tyranny creeps into society. Right in front of everyone's eyes. "Buy this, or else" and is upheld by the SCOTUS. Hilarious. Resist the "tax" and be jailed. Resist arrest and be shot. It sucks, because after you are shot by government agents you won't have any health insurance because you tried to resist being forced to buy something you wouldn't have needed at that time, save for being shot by government forces that is.

Woodruff is quite correct, without the individual mandate the entire Obamacare is worthless. Like all things though, this will help some but won't help others at all and will instead cause great pains. Such is the business of "solving problems". Such societal problems cannot be simply "solved", only trade offs enacted.
Few can truly see the costs and effects of this latest rounds of trade offs.

We get what we deserve.

Yup, Obama lied all along about the mandate not being a tax all along.

[Woodruff]

You seem to be missing the point of my sarcasm.

Honestly, it just seemed like you were messing with him a bit.

I would NEVER mess with Night Strike. I would NEVER mock his homophobic, religiocentric, locked-in-the-1940s outlook on the world. My good man, you offend me!

Ok, yeah...I do like to tweak him a bit.

Regardless of their voting and what not.
Do you believe it is constitutional, Woodruff?

I believe the Supreme Court has made it Constitutional, pending some sort of future review. I can at least recognize the argument that it falls under the general welfare clause.

I am still unsure if it will turn out to be a good thing...that will only come out in time, but I will say that I believe there are a lot of very good things about it.

[Phatscotty]

BY HOOK OR BY CROOK!

[Bones2484]

I came to this forum for the sole purpose of looking at what the title of this thread was changed to. So far I am highly disappointed.

[Woodruff]

Yes, liberals couldn't possibly understand nor respect the Constitution. Only conservatives do that.

Still not up on that self-reflecting thing, are you?

Liberals are the ones who believe in a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution and outright reject any "original intent" arguments.

I don't reject "original intent" arguments. However, I also recognize that the founding fathers absolutely wrote the Constitution in a vague manner precisely because they knew it would need to be re-interpreted as the future unfolded.

As an addendum, Obamacare would have NEVER passed if Obama and his democrats had not LIED to the American people.

I'm wondering why you never seem to complain about the Republicans lying. Why is that?