World Politics

[Oncearunner8]

Read his statement, then read my answer. He needs to write a more detailed statement if he wants to include the scope he and you seem to now ascribe to said statement.



8th "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Fines are not taxes, unless you know of a precedent set by the Supreme Court I don't know about...and you don't.

9th "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Unless you know of a precedent set by the Supreme Court that suggests the Federal government is not authorized to enact such legislation, you have not point...and you don't.

I realize that Republicans currently believe they are the sole judge of what is and is not constitutional, but Article 3 says that the Supreme Court has that sole authority, and unless you have precedent that I don't know about (and you don't), then all you have are talking points backed up by not ONE SINGLE INSTANCE OF PRECEDENT.



We will always have Paris...

I am not saying the 8th or the 9th will work. But from what I hear on the news, a few states are planning a suit against the federal government based on those amendments. I would think they stand NO chance in hell to fight it and that it would be a HUGE waste of State Tax money to fight this in that manner.
I bet no media will report that misuse of state tax money for the federal suit.

The best bet for the Republicans is to cling onto this bill and start on bills that will make this thing more efficient and work better for the working class. IMO.

**** / forget paris. LMAO

 

[Anonymous]

BTW#2, who EXACTLY is saying there is no problem with the current system?

Based on the amount of legislation proposed by Republicans PRIOR to the Democratic undertaking, I would say that you would be hard pressed to convince me that it was a priority...or even on their radar. They just kept claiming (lying to be correct) about how there was no real problem, and that everyone was happy as a clam.

 

[Anonymous]

I am not saying the 8th or the 9th will work. But from what I hear on the news, a few states are planning a suit against the federal government based on those amendments. I would think they stand NO chance in hell to fight it and that it would be a HUGE waste of State Tax money to fight this in that manner.
I bet no media will report that misuse of state tax money for the federal suit.

The best bet for the Republicans is to cling onto this bill and start on bills that will make this thing more efficient and work better for the working class. IMO.

**** / forget paris. LMAO

Yea, it will be a big show...you know, just like when they were going to take the check from the Stimulus and throw it back in the face of the Federal government...I guess they decided to cut ribbons in front of it instead, you know, because they have such rigid ethical standards and all...

 

[Big GMaC]

not me .... **** china and its society.

(edit the 'united' bit)

That is a pretty closed off view and indicative of the reasons why America's star is wanning. Come and live over here for a bit and you will change you mind.

People criticize the Communism [you know One Party state following Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is far more stable and receptive to investment than America currently is] but the reality is that here there is far less red tape and bureaucracy than in America. I could set up a stall in the street and as long as I wasn't saying **** about the government I would be making profit. Just up the scale for major companies. Try doing that in America and it will lead to, sign this form, go to this planning office, get this state law applied, see these federal people... etc.

Now I don't mean to come off as a complete Chinese sympathiser as there are obvious problems, see the current Rio Tinto mess, but in majority of cases in the next X years you will have more economic success be that personal/company success here. Just don't openly incite criticism of the government. Now, where was that proxy

 

[Hugh Januss]

The best bet for the Republicans is to cling onto this bill and start on bills that will make this thing more efficient and work better for the working class. IMO.

The only time the repubs give a thought to the working class is when they go on strike.

 

[Anonymous]

Read his statement, then read my answer. He needs to write a more detailed statement if he wants to include the scope he and you seem to now ascribe to said statement.



8th "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Fines are not taxes, unless you know of a precedent set by the Supreme Court I don't know about...and you don't.

9th "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Unless you know of a precedent set by the Supreme Court that suggests the Federal government is not authorized to enact such legislation, you have not point...and you don't.

I realize that Republicans currently believe they are the sole judge of what is and is not constitutional, but Article 3 says that the Supreme Court has that sole authority, and unless you have precedent that I don't know about (and you don't), then all you have are talking points backed up by not ONE SINGLE INSTANCE OF PRECEDENT.



We will always have Paris...or Red Lobster

All cute semantics and word parsing aside, can you think of another product/service that every American by virtue of their consumption of oxygen has EVER been required by law to purchase?

I didn't think so.

 

[Anonymous]

All cute semantics and word parsing aside, can you think of another product/service that every American by virtue of their consumption of oxygen has EVER been required by law to purchase?

I didn't think so.

Can you cite for me a precedent set by the Supreme Court that would prohibit such a requirement? No, you can't.

...and again, to not see the parallel between this and compulsory insurance for autos is to miss something very important.

 

[Anonymous]

Based on the amount of legislation proposed by Republicans PRIOR to the Democratic undertaking, I would say that you would be hard pressed to convince me that it was a priority...or even on their radar. They just kept claiming (lying to be correct) about how there was no real problem, and that everyone was happy as a clam.

Are you really going to say the Repubs have been silent regarding reforms?

 

[Oncearunner8]

(edit the 'united' bit)

That is a pretty closed off view and indicative of the reasons why America's star is wanning. Come and live over here for a bit and you will change you mind.

People criticize the Communism [you know One Party state following Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is far more stable and receptive to investment than America currently is] but the reality is that here there is far less red tape and bureaucracy than in America. I could set up a stall in the street and as long as I wasn't saying **** about the government I would be making profit. Just up the scale for major companies. Try doing that in America and it will lead to, sign this form, go to this planning office, get this state law applied, see these federal people... etc. Now I don't mean to come off as a complete Chinese sympathiser as there are obvious problems, see Rio Tinto, but in majority of cases in the next X years you will have more economic success be that personal/company success here. Just don't openly incite criticism of the government. Now, where was that proxy

I have no idea what your talking about.

See I have never left my township. Never been abroad to far off lands like for example (other states) I prefer to live here in my house trailer / mobile home.

Thanks for all the great insight.

and of course **** china.

 

[Anonymous]

Are you really going to say the Repubs have been silent regarding reforms?

No, they have had plenty to say in the past year...and they finally came up with an actual written bill themselves at one point...in the PAST YEAR.

Are you really suggesting that health care reform was a Republican priority before this year? Because I would love to see the bill (not Med Perscrip Drug), but one that addressed the problem of the uninsured and insured? Because you are going to have to stretch the truth a bit on that one.

 

[Oncearunner8]

All cute semantics and word parsing aside, can you think of another product/service that every American by virtue of their consumption of oxygen has EVER been required by law to purchase?

I didn't think so.

Socialsecurity and Medicare.

 

[BroDeal]

Are you really going to say the Repubs have been silent regarding reforms?

Where are they? Let's hear them.

What is your solution, Scott?

 

[Big GMaC]

I have no idea what your talking about.

See I have never left my township. Never been abroad to far off lands like for example (other states) I prefer to live here in my house trailer / mobile home.

Thanks for all the great insight.

and of course **** china.

Well then FUCK YOU too then. Your loss, my massive economic gain for have 1.6 billion more people to sell stuff to. Oh and I can speak their language.

and in 15 odd years when the charade of 'Chinese Socialism' is replaced by hungry Capitalism with democratic elections, what will your reaction then be? Probably 'Oh ****. My country is a rotting corpse that has been expolited and left with nothing'

[your pathetic attempt at irony was not lost on me, however, you seem to have leaned nothing from leaving your town, so maybe you shoulda stayed there]

 

[Anonymous]

Look, I am out on this one.

The Republicans succeeded in killing any real reform anyway. You guys actually won when it comes to thwarting any real addressing of the substantive problems in regards to health care and the uninsured. You are always very successful in getting the people who would actually be helped by the laws you oppose to vote against their best interests. You do it based on lies and half truths. Talk about Alinsky? Rove, Limbaugh, and Beck all could teach him a thing or two.

No, the truth is that when anyone suggests that we all contribute to the betterment of the whole of society, Republicans scream bloody murder and claim that they went on a mission trip once to help poor people and that should suffice. The fact is that the top 1% and their wealth made that money on the backs of the other 99%, and they don't want to give any back if it has to go to "undesirables." Republicans are great at showing their concern by claiming they are concerned and enacting NOTHING in terms of the problem.

 

[Anonymous]

Socialsecurity and Medicare.

I thought about them, but he will point out that you have to work to pay those...he is missing the forest for political expediency.

 

[Anonymous]

Can you cite for me a precedent set by the Supreme Court that would prohibit such a requirement? No, you can't.

...and again, to not see the parallel between this and compulsory insurance for autos is to miss something very important.

I think the States are going after the commerce clause;

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3,

Although the U.S. Constitution places some limits on state power, the states enjoy guaranteed rights by virtue of their reserved powers pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. A state has the inherent and reserved right to regulate its domestic commerce. However, that right must be exercised in a manner that does not interfere with, or place a burden on, interstate commerce, or else Congress may regulate that area of domestic commerce in order to protect interstate commerce from the unreasonable burden. Although a state may not directly regulate, prohibit, or burden interstate or foreign commerce, it may incidentally and indirectly affect it by a bona fide, legitimate, and reasonable exercise of its police powers

You will probably argue Preemption, but I think that's where the Supreme's will pick it up.

 

[BroDeal]

I think the States are going after the commerce clause;

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3,

Although the U.S. Constitution places some limits on state power, the states enjoy guaranteed rights by virtue of their reserved powers pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. A state has the inherent and reserved right to regulate its domestic commerce. However, that right must be exercised in a manner that does not interfere with, or place a burden on, interstate commerce, or else Congress may regulate that area of domestic commerce in order to protect interstate commerce from the unreasonable burden. Although a state may not directly regulate, prohibit, or burden interstate or foreign commerce, it may incidentally and indirectly affect it by a bona fide, legitimate, and reasonable exercise of its police powers

You will probably argue Preemption, but I think that's where the Supreme's will pick it up.

You always know that you are dealing with the kooks when they start making wild claims about Constitutionality.

You would think that you conservatives, who are always complaining about the poor vermin flooding the ERs of hospitals, would be tickled pink that people will be forced to have insurance to pay for their treatment.

 

[Anonymous]

I think the States are going after the commerce clause;

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3,

Although the U.S. Constitution places some limits on state power, the states enjoy guaranteed rights by virtue of their reserved powers pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. A state has the inherent and reserved right to regulate its domestic commerce. However, that right must be exercised in a manner that does not interfere with, or place a burden on, interstate commerce, or else Congress may regulate that area of domestic commerce in order to protect interstate commerce from the unreasonable burden. Although a state may not directly regulate, prohibit, or burden interstate or foreign commerce, it may incidentally and indirectly affect it by a bona fide, legitimate, and reasonable exercise of its police powers

You will probably argue Preemption, but I think that's where the Supreme's will pick it up.

That is not a Supreme Court precedent. In the 200 or so years following the adoption of that document, never has the Supreme Court ruled against an action like this. NEVER. The closest you can come is US v Butler, and that had to do with a point that would not be germane to this particular case.

 

[Anonymous]

Where are they? Let's hear them.

What is your solution, Scott?

For the 30th time, we can start with tort reform, allow (by reducing regulations) insurance to sell across state lies, allow insurance to design policies that can be customizable (not unlike auto insurance), allow individuals to pool together for group rates similar to employers, reduce red tape from FDA (it takes decades in most cases to bring new pharma to market). There are many things that can be done that don't entail spending another trillion.

 

[BroDeal]

I am still waiting for Scott's health care solution. I'll even make it easy by giving him a scenario.

A person, who has exercised his "Constitutional" right not to buy health insurance, wakes up one day with pain in his chest. He coughs up blood in the shower, so he rushes down to the local ER. There it is determined he has treatable cancer. He has three kids with no one to support them if their father dies. What happens next in Scott world?

 

[rhubroma]

There is no logic. The Republicans are useful idiots for their corporate masters. Note the ridiculous claims that we are on the road to socialism and nashing of teeth about the cost of a watered down (and nearly useless) health care bill that the CBO estimates will lower the deficit in the first ten years. Even disregarding the income that will be brought in to more than offset the cost, the total price is less than a trillion dollars over ten years.

Before Bush left office the total cost of his wars was three trillion, none of it funded, all of it borrowed. Where were the conservatives during the last ten years? Where was the outrage about Bush turning a budget surplus into a record setting deficit? It was nowhere to be found. Yet spending a third as much on Americans instead of dumping the money into a desert wasteland is a call to arms.

That hypocrisy tells everything. This has nothing to do with socialism or even spending. The health care issue is merely a political device being used to rile up the conservative base. Most of those who are complaining won't even be affected by the bill, which is mostly designed to aid the working poor who do not have employer purchased insurance. The people bemoaning the injustice of being forced to buy insurance are the same people who already have insurance and deny there are any problems with the current system.

Scott and his hearltess ilk do a lot of complaining. I have not heard one proposal for a solution from them. Let's hear it. How would Scott and his right wingers fix the health care system, which now consumes more than 17% of the GDP, a figure that is expected to grow to 21% in ten years? Is their plan to just sit on our hands until the country faces financial disaster, much like Bush did when he was president?

Simple, the rich and powerful get to decide how the money is spent...and on what. And then control the means of mass perception, even when contrary to the mass interests.

 

[Anonymous]

That is not a Supreme Court precedent. In the 200 or so years following the adoption of that document, never has the Supreme Court ruled against an action like this. NEVER. The closest you can come is US v Butler, and that had to do with a point that would not be germane to this particular case.

From what I'm hearing this is what at least 30 States are preparing to sue the Fed Govt over.

 

[Anonymous]

I am still waiting for Scott's health care solution. I'll even make it easy by giving him a scenario.

A person, who has exercised his "Constitutional" right not to buy health insurance, wakes up one day with pain in his chest. He coughs up blood in the shower, so he rushes down to the local ER. There it is determined he has treatable cancer. He has three kids with no one to support them if their father dies. What happens next in Scott world?

Why not 5 kids and living in his car?

 

[Anonymous]

I am still waiting for Scott's health care solution. I'll even make it easy by giving him a scenario.

A person, who has exercised his "Constitutional" right not to buy health insurance, wakes up one day with pain in his chest. He coughs up blood in the shower, so he rushes down to the local ER. There it is determined he has treatable cancer. He has three kids with no one to support them if their father dies. What happens next in Scott world?

See, it's like buying auto insurance after you caused a 3 car wreck. That's now going to be the law relating to healthcare. That should lower rates a ton.

This, by design, is exactly what will eventually eliminate private insurance. The guy in you scenario now will just pay a $600 fine per year buy not buyingh insurance and now that he's diagnose with treatable cancer he'll just roll down to the local blue cross and get someone else to pay for his cancer treatment. Brilliant.

 

[rhubroma]

Ok. So the Italian system is without flaws. Great.

Oh, yes, Italy has its magnificent flaws, of which they have attained a level of practically unrivaled proficency...though on healthcare they have it right.