patches70 wrote:Christ on a stick, can't even you see that? People earlier brought up Bradley Manning. If one is conscripted, or joins military service on their own, the government then owns that individual and can do just about anything they want. G.I. means "Government Issued", that's what you are, government issue. Since there is no provision in Obamacare of conscription into the Armed Services, it doesn't apply.
I brought up Bradley Manning, but it had nothing to do with ObamaCare specifically. It had to do with the suggestion that the government can't infringe on rights (sleep, being brought up as one).
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
patches70 wrote:Christ on a stick, can't even you see that? People earlier brought up Bradley Manning. If one is conscripted, or joins military service on their own, the government then owns that individual and can do just about anything they want. G.I. means "Government Issued", that's what you are, government issue. Since there is no provision in Obamacare of conscription into the Armed Services, it doesn't apply.
I brought up Bradley Manning, but it had nothing to do with ObamaCare specifically. It had to do with the suggestion that the government can't infringe on rights (sleep, being brought up as one).
Bradley Manning joined the military of his own free will. Once in, he's subject to all the laws and regulations as described in the UCMJ. He signed contracts that he'd not give out classified material. He violated those contracts (allegedly, I'm not sure where in the process he is in his court martial), he's going to be in prison for the rest of his life. He could well have been executed, legally, as a spy.
He's not a good example at all of a government trampling rights. A better example by far is the secret service now allowed to break up peaceful demonstrations over hazy "security concerns", peaceful, licensed protests. Or the NDAA. Or a host of other recent government policies that are troubling in regards to protecting Liberty.
Governments always end up being a threat to freedom, our Founders knew this. All governments who go this route end up the same, overthrown in the end. This government is no different.
patches70 wrote:Christ on a stick, can't even you see that? People earlier brought up Bradley Manning. If one is conscripted, or joins military service on their own, the government then owns that individual and can do just about anything they want. G.I. means "Government Issued", that's what you are, government issue. Since there is no provision in Obamacare of conscription into the Armed Services, it doesn't apply.
I brought up Bradley Manning, but it had nothing to do with ObamaCare specifically. It had to do with the suggestion that the government can't infringe on rights (sleep, being brought up as one).
Bradley Manning joined the military of his own free will. Once in, he's subject to all the laws and regulations as described in the UCMJ. He signed contracts that he'd not give out classified material. He violated those contracts (allegedly, I'm not sure where in the process he is in his court martial), he's going to be in prison for the rest of his life. He could well have been executed, legally, as a spy.
He's not a good example at all of a government trampling rights. A better example by far is the secret service now allowed to break up peaceful demonstrations over hazy "security concerns", peaceful, licensed protests. Or the NDAA. Or a host of other recent government policies that are troubling in regards to protecting Liberty.
Governments always end up being a threat to freedom, our Founders knew this. All governments who go this route end up the same, overthrown in the end. This government is no different.
Bradley Manning's having signed his life away does not at all make him less of an example. I well recognize that he signed the oath of enlistment (remember, I was enlisted for 23 years). However, it clearly shows that the government absolutely can infringe on that particular "right" (as it was given), which was my point.
At any rate, all of that was simply to show that Phatscotty's definition of a "right" was silly, as nothing could fit that definition.
Last edited by Woodruff on Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Timminz wrote:They've had, and used, that power ever since the first years of being a country. I posted a link a few pages back, that was completely ignored. I'm not surprised though; it does poke a big fat hole in this argument.
There is a reason it was ignored, it doesn't apply. The administrations own lawyers didn't even bother to argue along those lines because they'd have been laughed out of the court.
For Washington's part, Obamacare might apply if everyone required to buy insurance was first conscripted!. ....
You should maybe read the whole thing. Don't worry, I put the link back in, so that you won't have any trouble finding it again.
Phatscotty wrote:No I'm not against unemployment benefits.
! question though. Do you really trust the government on this one?
But unemployment benefits would mean you were taking something from someone else because you need it, correct?
Trust the government... no actually, not really. Until they impose term limits in congress, all of the senators and representatives (both sides) will continue to look after their own asses, and not the people they are supposed to be representing.
BUT that is why I am at least happy that the law is not a true socialized healthcare system. The healthcare system is still being run (for the most part) by private industry. Health insurers, hospitals, providers... none are run by the government. Of course Medicare and Medicaid are government programs, but they still use private insurers to process the claim, and private providers to provide the service.
What I do hope is that now that the law looks like it won't be repealed, both sides can come together to make it better. Tie up the lose ends that were not addressed in the law. See, I know this law isn't perfect, but I see it as a solid starting point that if improved upon, can become something pretty good.
Well, don't my taxes that I have been paying every single week for the last 16 years (with the exception of 3 weeks being unemployed) go to cover that unemployment? Have I not paid in? I grant up front it's not like social security, but there is a legitimate claim by the taxpayer.
That doesn't logically follow. The idea that your unemployment benefits should have any bearing on whether or what taxes you've paid over your life would mean a lack of recognition of your then having been getting all of those other benefits (roads, etc...) without having paid taxes for them, which would once again put you in the category of taking from someone else in order to benefit yourself.
I think you kinda just said what I was about to (or close to it)... that you don't have a CHOICE of paying into unemployment (weather you ever use it or not), just like now you don't have a choice but to pay into healthcare (ok, you do have a choice still, but to pay a tax if you don't participate... unless you are an American Indian or have a religious squabble with having insurance).
Night Strike wrote: That government does not have the authority to tell someone to buy a product they do not want to buy.
The government has that power now, apparently!
They've had, and used, that power ever since the first years of being a country. I posted a link a few pages back, that was completely ignored. I'm not surprised though; it does poke a big fat hole in this argument.
Timminz wrote:Has anyone mentioned yet that George Washington, himself, mandated certain purchases? Kind of gives an interesting twist to parts of this monstrously-complex discussion, doesn't it.
Edited to re-post the link. Feel free to continue ignoring it though.
I read your link, and viewed it again. Your source is a Soros boy. Ezra Klein...hmm isn't that the guy always arguing against the Constitution? Yup, that's him. I've been reading him for years.
Of course, there are no sources or links in the story, and in fact I think the entire thing is "a post"
The act, while unpopular, cannot be so condensed as to fit into a 2012 debate on healthcare mandates. Also, you cannot compare the governments obvious first and foremost responsibility, defense against invasion. What good is calling on the militia, when you can't arm them? What about the environment? While France and England are going at war with each other, and both constantly threatening to punish America for supporting either side? In fact we were invaded less than 20 years later. Guess we are pretty glad that people were encouraged and in some times and in some ways ordered to own a gun and ammunition. Also, your "source" does not mention that the act specifically quoted was revised, repealed, and renewed, and repealed.... Also noteworthy is this is one of the main provisions that Abraham Lincoln relied on when he "called up/drafted" 75,000 "volunteers".
In plain English. Defense is a legitimate function of the government if there ever was one.
You should maybe read the whole thing. Don't worry, I put the link back in, so that you won't have any trouble finding it again.
I read your link, it gave two examples. The first one is about conscripted militia having to provide their own muskets. Now, tell me, how does that apply to Obamacare? Are the entire citizenry of the US being conscripted? I didn't read or hear about that anywhere in the 2,700+ pages of the bill, who knows, maybe it's in there somewhere....
The second, is the maritime mandate to have insurance. Never has Congress ordered that every citizen must purchase something as a requirement for citizenship. It applied to sailors. You know, if you want to be a fireman or a police officer, you must have health insurance? It's like that for a lot of jobs, where health insurance is require to have that job. No one forces anyone to go into such fields, but that if you were to decide for yourself to go into a field that requires health insurance, then you must have it. No one forces anyone to do anything. Not so with Obamacare.
Your link has not been ignored, why don't you tell how it applies to Obamacare and comment on how these issues were not brought up in the recent SCOTUS case nor cited at all in the judgment. Neither of those cases has any similarity at all with Obamacare. The individual mandate is without precedent, unless viewed as a tax. Which the SCOTUS did. Need I remind you that the maritime mandate in your link specifically states it falls under the Commerce clause? The SCOTUS explicitly said the individual mandate does not fall under the Commerce Clause at all. Now, explain how the two are similiar....
After the SCOTUS ruling, Obama said it's time to move forward and fix Obamacare to make it better. I can only hope he means to address all those serious problems that were never addressed. Like low ball Medicaid payments to doctors, shortage of doctors (so what if you have insurance if you can't even get an appointment to see a doctor), Tort reform, health care costs and the billion other unintended consequences of Obamacare.
The "right" to health care is going to bankrupt doctors and practices. Tell me, if we were to even drive 10% of the available doctors out of the field, would that translate into improved care for all?
Timminz wrote:Has anyone mentioned yet that George Washington, himself, mandated certain purchases? Kind of gives an interesting twist to parts of this monstrously-complex discussion, doesn't it.
Edited to re-post the link. Feel free to continue ignoring it though.
I read your link, and viewed it again. Your source is a Soros boy. Ezra Klein...hmm isn't that the guy always arguing against the Constitution? Yup, that's him. I've been reading him for years.
SOCIALISM!!!!! OBAMA!!!!!! Now we get SOROS!!!!!!
Last edited by Woodruff on Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote:SOCIALISM!!!!! OBAMA!!!!!! Now we get SOROS!!!!!!
Whats true is true.
Stop acting like a reactionary non thinking fundamental-extremist fringe-element wing-nut goose-stepping boot-licking scruffy-looking nerf-herder
Is that the voices in your head talking to you again, Phatscotty?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Aren't nerfs from Star Wars Battlegrounds? The LucasArts copy of AOE.
I envisioned footballs, myself...
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
You should maybe read the whole thing. Don't worry, I put the link back in, so that you won't have any trouble finding it again.
I read your link, it gave two examples. The first one is about conscripted militia having to provide their own muskets. Now, tell me, how does that apply to Obamacare? Are the entire citizenry of the US being conscripted? I didn't read or hear about that anywhere in the 2,700+ pages of the bill, who knows, maybe it's in there somewhere....
The second, is the maritime mandate to have insurance. Never has Congress ordered that every citizen must purchase something as a requirement for citizenship. It applied to sailors. You know, if you want to be a fireman or a police officer, you must have health insurance? It's like that for a lot of jobs, where health insurance is require to have that job. No one forces anyone to go into such fields, but that if you were to decide for yourself to go into a field that requires health insurance, then you must have it. No one forces anyone to do anything. Not so with Obamacare.
Your link has not been ignored, why don't you tell how it applies to Obamacare and comment on how these issues were not brought up in the recent SCOTUS case nor cited at all in the judgment. Neither of those cases has any similarity at all with Obamacare. The individual mandate is without precedent, unless viewed as a tax. Which the SCOTUS did. Need I remind you that the maritime mandate in your link specifically states it falls under the Commerce clause? The SCOTUS explicitly said the individual mandate does not fall under the Commerce Clause at all. Now, explain how the two are similiar....
People say the government lacks the ability to force citizens to engage in the marketplace. Those people might not know that noted communist George Washington once signed a law compelling citizens who had been conscripted (which, you know, isn't exactly voluntary into itself) to buy their own muskets. The reasons for this are similar to why Obama wants to force (with a completely toothless measure OH NOES IT'S A COUPLE HUNDRED BUCKS THAT ONLY A TINY, TINY MINORITY OF PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO PAY) citizens to buy healthcare: Obama wants everybody to have health insurance, but he doesn't want the government to pay for it. GW wanted everybody to be armed, but he didn't want the government to pay for it.
Woodruff wrote:SOCIALISM!!!!! OBAMA!!!!!! Now we get SOROS!!!!!!
Whats true is true.
Stop acting like a reactionary non thinking fundamental-extremist fringe-element wing-nut goose-stepping boot-licking scruffy-looking nerf-herder
Is that the voices in your head talking to you again, Phatscotty?
Only one of us is yelling like a child, stomping their feet in caps lock, completely unable to even relate to the topic matter.
It's all you pal
Yes, there's no way that those 'stomping feet in caps lock" statements are simple mimicry of you. No...that would require a small bit of introspection on your part, and nobody is expecting that anytime soon.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
john9blue wrote:there is a difference between taking someone's rights and violating someone's rights.
What is the actual difference between having no rights and having your rights taken away from you?
john9blue wrote:similarly, someone who steals from you doesn't "take away your right to own property", otherwise you would have no legitimate reason to want your stuff back (because someone like woodruff would claim that you no longer have a right to your property because "your right was taken from you").
You really need to learn basic reading comprehension. Perhaps you can squeeze that in sometime in between your various Phatscotty defenses, Mr. Moderate.
a complete non-answer. can't say i expected anything more.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
1. The US government (via George Washington and the Militia Acts of 1792) has forced people to join a militia and buy their own military equipment/supplies. And this is all and well with the constitution since "Congress can regulate a ‘well-regulated’ militia with a mandate."
Criticism: well, this applies to making a militia, or for national defense, so I don't see how this is relevant to forcing people to buy healthcare insurance.
2. "That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring [seamen to] purchase ... health insurance." (via Commerce Clause)
2a. Interestingly enough, 'most framers supported such acts (#2), and the dissenters didn't object on constitutional grounds.' -Einer Elhauge (paraphrased)
Criticism: Okay, good point, good point; however, since #2 only applied to ship owners and seamen, I can understand why there were few objections, and none rooted in constitutional grounds. Nevertheless, if such a law/individual mandate were applied to everyone, I wonder if the framers would have reacted differently.
My Basic Position re: this thread If the US in the late late 1700s was highly geared toward freer markets, then the markets might have been able to make up for most negative unintended consequences from the "Seamen Mandate." If that's the case, then #1 and #2 probably were not problematic; however, these times are different. I'm extremely skeptical in granting the US federal government such additional power because (a) it sets the precedent for further state intervention, and (2) given that today's health insurance industry is highly regulated and favoring only a few (i.e. crony capitalist), it seems that the good intentions of the policymakers will lead to outcomes whose benefits won't offset the costs. That's my concern.
john9blue wrote:there is a difference between taking someone's rights and violating someone's rights.
What is the actual difference between having no rights and having your rights taken away from you?
john9blue wrote:similarly, someone who steals from you doesn't "take away your right to own property", otherwise you would have no legitimate reason to want your stuff back (because someone like woodruff would claim that you no longer have a right to your property because "your right was taken from you").
You really need to learn basic reading comprehension. Perhaps you can squeeze that in sometime in between your various Phatscotty defenses, Mr. Moderate.
a complete non-answer. can't say i expected anything more.
Really? My point about there being no difference between having no rights and having your rights taken away from you is a complete non-answer? Or is it that it's just an answer you don't have a response to, Mr. Moderate? It'd also help if you'd actually read what I right instead of just assuming what I'm saying because I'm a dirty liberal to you.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
BigBallinStalin wrote:If the US in the late late 1700s was highly geared toward freer markets, then the markets might have been able to make up for most negative unintended consequences from the "Seamen Mandate."
That sounds like a fraternity hazing incident.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
