Affordable Care Act / ObamaCare

[Hingle McCringleberry]

 

 

they also have the right to tell Americans that they can't buy something...right?

 

 

 

They already do this.... Look up a list of things banned in this country, Marijuania to Ivory, raw milk/cheese (in fact an Amish man just got arrested for selling raw milk), horse meat, medications, fully automatic weapons, it is shocking what I cannot buy for my own "good"

 

Give me a break. You can buy marijuana, horse meat or anything else if you know the right people. And just because there's a "law" saying something can't be bought doesn't mean it's right. There's a ban on Cuban cigars but somehow many people smoke them--does that make them criminals? If we go by the letter of the law yes it does. It boils down to one basic train of thought: Do I want the government to be able to dictate what I do in every facet of my life? The left thinks they, and only they, should have total control over your life to try and "save" you from yourself.

 

 

I am on your side on this... I am just trying to point out they already tell us what we can and cant buy... Yes they are breaking the law technically, but they have to do an action to break the law ie buying pot... Obamacae is different, by saying you are breaking the law through inaction. And to follow you up, no I dont want people telling me what I can and cannot do, they say it is in our best interest, but in fact it is in there best interest, to keep health care costs low, if the gov didn't have a vested interest in health care they would have no reason to tell you what to buy/eat/smoke..

['SkersRule]

So, because a law can be broken it's not a law?

 

And the second bold - come on. Let's be real here.

 

No, I said that just because something is "law" doesn't make it right. Slavery was once legal, should we go back and reinstitute it?

 

I recognize that the ultra-conservative religious right wants to ban things they disagree with: homosexuality, porn, and abortions being the three most prominent issues. However, there are countless left-wing groups who want you to stop eating meat, prevent you from owning firearms, prevent you from smoking, cut back on your resource usage/carbon "footprint," stop you from eating at Burger King or any other fast food place, outlaw homeschooling, etc.

 

I agree that infringement upon liberties is bad regardless of who does it. It just seems that those on the left are far more prone and likely to try and curtail behavior through legislation than those on the right are.

[knapplc]

So, because a law can be broken it's not a law?

 

And the second bold - come on. Let's be real here.

 

No, I said that just because something is "law" doesn't make it right. Slavery was once legal, should we go back and reinstitute it?

 

I recognize that the ultra-conservative religious right wants to ban things they disagree with: homosexuality, porn, and abortions being the three most prominent issues. However, there are countless left-wing groups who want you to stop eating meat, prevent you from owning firearms, prevent you from smoking, cut back on your resource usage/carbon "footprint," stop you from eating at Burger King or any other fast food place, outlaw homeschooling, etc.

 

I agree that infringement upon liberties is bad regardless of who does it. It just seems that those on the left are far more prone and likely to try and curtail behavior through legislation than those on the right are.

 

Those left-wing groups you're talking about are the diametric opposite of the far-Right groups. Both fringes are wackos and should be disregarded when talking about the opinions of the majority. I don't think the left is any more prone to infringe on your rights than the right. Both do it, and both are wrong.

 

I think it has a lot to do with which side of the political spectrum you're on. The Left thinks the Right's wrongs are far worse, the Right thinks the Left's wrongs are far worse, and the Centrists (like me, and the majority of Americans) think both fringes are wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

You can be Left-Centrist and Right-Centrist and still be OK. It's when you take your views to the extreme without any willingness to compromise that the country starts to have problems. Like today.

['SkersRule]

I think it has a lot to do with which side of the political spectrum you're on. The Left thinks the Right's wrongs are far worse, the Right thinks the Left's wrongs are far worse, and the Centrists (like me, and the majority of Americans) think both fringes are wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

You can be Left-Centrist and Right-Centrist and still be OK. It's when you take your views to the extreme without any willingness to compromise that the country starts to have problems. Like today.

 

I agree that perspective is dependent upon the place one is viewing from. However, I think there are more left-wing groups seeking to modify behavior through legislation than there are right-wing groups. And believe it or not I'm a centrist as well because I like some things the left does and some things the right does. I believe that neither side has all the answers or is correct and that the best course for this country lies somewhere in the middle of left/right.

[knapplc]

I think it has a lot to do with which side of the political spectrum you're on. The Left thinks the Right's wrongs are far worse, the Right thinks the Left's wrongs are far worse, and the Centrists (like me, and the majority of Americans) think both fringes are wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

You can be Left-Centrist and Right-Centrist and still be OK. It's when you take your views to the extreme without any willingness to compromise that the country starts to have problems. Like today.

 

I agree that perspective is dependent upon the place one is viewing from. However, I think there are more left-wing groups seeking to modify behavior through legislation than there are right-wing groups. And believe it or not I'm a centrist as well because I like some things the left does and some things the right does. I believe that neither side has all the answers or is correct and that the best course for this country lies somewhere in the middle of left/right.

 

I don't agree with that at all. I think the Tea Party alone trumps every left-wing group out there.

 

For goodness' sake - the Right has a top presidential candidate whose views are so archly conservative Reagan wouldn't have remotely supported him. That's not even "groups," that's becoming the mainstream.

['SkersRule]

I don't agree with that at all. I think the Tea Party alone trumps every left-wing group out there.

 

For goodness' sake - the Right has a top presidential candidate whose views are so archly conservative Reagan wouldn't have remotely supported him. That's not even "groups," that's becoming the mainstream.

 

That's fine you can disagree. But to say that the "Tea Party" trumps all left-wing groups out there...well that's simply your opinion not fact. For example, I think moveon.org is the worst left-wing organization there is and that they are 10x worse that the Tea Party. But that's my opinion and not a fact at all.

[knapplc]

I don't agree with that at all. I think the Tea Party alone trumps every left-wing group out there.

 

For goodness' sake - the Right has a top presidential candidate whose views are so archly conservative Reagan wouldn't have remotely supported him. That's not even "groups," that's becoming the mainstream.

 

That's fine you can disagree. But to say that the "Tea Party" trumps all left-wing groups out there...well that's simply your opinion not fact. For example, I think moveon.org is the worst left-wing organization there is and that they are 10x worse that the Tea Party. But that's my opinion and not a fact at all.

 

How are they 10x worse than the Tea Party?

['SkersRule]

I don't agree with that at all. I think the Tea Party alone trumps every left-wing group out there.

 

For goodness' sake - the Right has a top presidential candidate whose views are so archly conservative Reagan wouldn't have remotely supported him. That's not even "groups," that's becoming the mainstream.

 

That's fine you can disagree. But to say that the "Tea Party" trumps all left-wing groups out there...well that's simply your opinion not fact. For example, I think moveon.org is the worst left-wing organization there is and that they are 10x worse that the Tea Party. But that's my opinion and not a fact at all.

 

How are they 10x worse than the Tea Party?

 

How does the Tea Party trump every left-wing group?

[Mavric]

As I’ve explained elsewhere, the argument for the mandate’s constitutionality is very simple. Congress has the power, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate insurance, and so to mandate that insurers cover people with preexisting medical conditions. (The brief does not dispute this.) Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it may choose any convenient means to carry out this end. The mandate is clearly helpful, and may even be absolutely necessary, to Congress’s purpose. Therefore it is constitutional. Full stop.

http://balkin.blogsp...ul-clement.html

 

This is somewhat of a logical leap. It takes a pretty liberal (can't decided if the pun is intended or not) interpretation of the word "necessary" for this to be true. It is not "necessary" for the mandate to be in place for Congress to pass a law stating that insurers must cover people with pre-existing conditions. They could do that part as a stand-alone law. It's only necessary to have the mandate for everyone to buy insurance for the first part to even have a chance to be financially solvent.

 

If Congress passed a law forcing coverage for pre-existing conditions, it would make health care insurance costs go up even higher which would increase a bunch of other problems but the mandate is only necessary in a financial sense, not a legal one. You would then have the same arguement over what is allowed under the Necessary and Proper Clause as you currently have over the Commerce Clause.

[carlfense]

As I’ve explained elsewhere, the argument for the mandate’s constitutionality is very simple. Congress has the power, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate insurance, and so to mandate that insurers cover people with preexisting medical conditions. (The brief does not dispute this.) Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it may choose any convenient means to carry out this end. The mandate is clearly helpful, and may even be absolutely necessary, to Congress’s purpose. Therefore it is constitutional. Full stop.

http://balkin.blogsp...ul-clement.html

 

This is somewhat of a logical leap. It takes a pretty liberal (can't decided if the pun is intended or not) interpretation of the word "necessary" for this to be true. It is not "necessary" for the mandate to be in place for Congress to pass a law stating that insurers must cover people with pre-existing conditions. They could do that part as a stand-alone law. It's only necessary to have the mandate for everyone to buy insurance for the first part to even have a chance to be financially solvent.

 

If Congress passed a law forcing coverage for pre-existing conditions, it would make health care insurance costs go up even higher which would increase a bunch of other problems but the mandate is only necessary in a financial sense, not a legal one. You would then have the same arguement over what is allowed under the Necessary and Proper Clause as you currently have over the Commerce Clause.

I think the argument is that it is necessary for viability.

[johnnyrodgers20]

So, because a law can be broken it's not a law?

 

And the second bold - come on. Let's be real here.

 

No, I said that just because something is "law" doesn't make it right. Slavery was once legal, should we go back and reinstitute it?

 

I recognize that the ultra-conservative religious right wants to ban things they disagree with: homosexuality, porn, and abortions being the three most prominent issues. However, there are countless left-wing groups who want you to stop eating meat, prevent you from owning firearms, prevent you from smoking, cut back on your resource usage/carbon "footprint," stop you from eating at Burger King or any other fast food place, outlaw homeschooling, etc.

 

I agree that infringement upon liberties is bad regardless of who does it. It just seems that those on the left are far more prone and likely to try and curtail behavior through legislation than those on the right are.

 

Those left-wing groups you're talking about are the diametric opposite of the far-Right groups. Both fringes are wackos and should be disregarded when talking about the opinions of the majority. I don't think the left is any more prone to infringe on your rights than the right. Both do it, and both are wrong.

 

I think it has a lot to do with which side of the political spectrum you're on. The Left thinks the Right's wrongs are far worse, the Right thinks the Left's wrongs are far worse, and the Centrists (like me, and the majority of Americans) think both fringes are wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

You can be Left-Centrist and Right-Centrist and still be OK. It's when you take your views to the extreme without any willingness to compromise that the country starts to have problems. Like today.

 

Banning salt in NYC was not done by right wingers, forcing Cos. to shrink fries sizes is not done by right wingers. While both fringes are whacko, the lefties try to micro manage your life for your own good. I think that is the point!!

[carlfense]

Banning salt in NYC was not done by right wingers, forcing Cos. to shrink fries sizes is not done by right wingers. While both fringes are whacko, the lefties try to micro manage your life for your own good. I think that is the point!!

How about requiring the insertion of wands into vaginas? Nah. That's not nearly as invasive as shrinking the size of fries, right?

[johnnyrodgers20]

Banning salt in NYC was not done by right wingers, forcing Cos. to shrink fries sizes is not done by right wingers. While both fringes are whacko, the lefties try to micro manage your life for your own good. I think that is the point!!

How about requiring the insertion of wands into vaginas? Nah. That's not nearly as invasive as shrinking the size of fries, right?

 

 

That sentence just made my point Carl, thank you!! I said micro managing, obviously there are the usual debate issues but they are big issues both sides feel they are right about. Abortion, Marriage, defense, the usual. I knew you would choose to pick something that isn't the point, we are talking about the minutia that the left seems happy to try to control, very trivial things, not something like that.

[carlfense]

Banning salt in NYC was not done by right wingers, forcing Cos. to shrink fries sizes is not done by right wingers. While both fringes are whacko, the lefties try to micro manage your life for your own good. I think that is the point!!

How about requiring the insertion of wands into vaginas? Nah. That's not nearly as invasive as shrinking the size of fries, right?

 

 

That sentence just made my point Carl, thank you!! I said micro managing, obviously there are the usual debate issues but they are big issues both sides feel they are right about. Abortion, Marriage, defense, the usual. I knew you would choose to pick something that isn't the point, we are talking about the minutia that the left seems happy to try to control, very trivial things, not something like that.

You have a very strange way of looking at things.

[krill]

I am wondering if in the court's opinion the individual mandate is unconstitutional what kind of Pandora's box will be opened in regard to compulsory participation in Social Security and Medicare. In particular what it could mean for Republican efforts to privatize these programs, since you will the be compelled to participate in a commercial activity.

 

I also wonder if a public option had been included in the affordable care act, whether that would have changed considerations on whether an individual is being compelled to participate in commerce (even though the central tenant of the argument is that individuals w/o insurance already are participating in commerce at the expense of everyone else).

 

The commercial aspect is hard to follow, and it is baffling to me that loss recovery on the part of health care providers (commercial participants not paying) is not part of the argument. Even more so since elimination of free rider problems is supposedly a conservative value.