Another Reason Republicans will Lose in 2012?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Would you use that to describe "Obamacare"?

Nope. That's Socialist and that's baaaaaaaaaaaaad.

[CharlieK]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Would you use that to describe "Obamacare"?

No, but I would definitely call it what it is: Unconstitutionally forcing the citizenry to buy something they may not wish to purchase. If they can Ram that down everyone's throats, what will be next?

And what will you do when the State forces the same thing on one of your Pet Peeves? And when they use Obamacare as the case-celebe, will you be outraged then?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by CharlieK

No, but I would definitely call it what it is: Unconstitutionally forcing the citizenry to buy something they may not wish to purchase. If they can Ram that down everyone's throats, what will be next?

And what will you do when the State forces the same thing on one of your Pet Peeves? And when they use Obamacare as the case-celebe, will you be outraged then?

You are being completely dishonest here. You claim "no" yet you use the term "ram that down everyone's throats" and "unconstitutionally forcing"? At least be a man and stand up for your hypocrisy.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by CharlieK

No, but I would definitely call it what it is: Unconstitutionally forcing the citizenry to buy something they may not wish to purchase. If they can Ram that down everyone's throats, what will be next?

And what will you do when the State forces the same thing on one of your Pet Peeves? And when they use Obamacare as the case-celebe, will you be outraged then?

Ok, so you have illustrated what you feel makes it unpopular. You feel it is not consitutional.

Do you think that perhaps doing the unpopular thing, while it may be the best approach, may not be the most popular one?

Or do you not apply your logic to things Obama does that you do not like?

[Swift]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Would you use that to describe "Obamacare"?

when you can't point to the section of the constitution that enumerates the power to force a citizen to purchase something, I believe that goes to a stronger state then "unpopular".

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

I don't disagree. I'm merely stating an observation. Truth is, Obama was the first POTUS to be elected with the internet/cell phone/communication technology etc. at the informaton transfer rate we know it, its almost impossible to compare it to any past POTUS-elect.

That's an excellent point that I think most of us have overlooked.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Swift

when you can't point to the section of the constitution that enumerates the power to force a citizen to purchase something, I believe that goes to a stronger state then "unpopular".

It's been pointed to...you just don't agree with it.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Swift

when you can't point to the section of the constitution that enumerates the power to force a citizen to purchase something, I believe that goes to a stronger state then "unpopular".

So how do you feel about being forced to buy car insurance?

How do you address the issue of someone going to the hospital without a method to pay for the services they recieve?

You may or may not ever be in a car accident but if you are, there needs to be compensation for the person you hit.

You will be in the doctors office at some point in your life. There needs to be compensation to those who provide the services. Without it, we all pay more to accomodate for their lost cost recovery via those who don't pay.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

So how do you feel about being forced to buy car insurance?

I despise it, but I don't have to own a car. Also, I don't even have to insure myself(unless I don't own the car outright). I have to have insurance for the other person.

How do you address the issue of someone going to the hospital without a method to pay for the services they recieve?

I would direct that back at you. Why should all the people that can pay be forced to pay insanely high prices because others exploit the system?

My problem is that nobody is addressing why the costs are where they are, they just want to dictate how the people that do pay, should pay. That's stupid.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

It's been pointed to...you just don't agree with it.

Congress has the power to "regulate commerce among the states." Regulate does not mean compel. Had the Framers wanted to give the federal government the power to force people to engage in commerce, they could have done so by writing "Congress shall have the power to compel commerce."

Words have meaning, at least to some people.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Congress has the power to "regulate commerce among the states." Regulate does not mean compel. Had the Framers wanted to give the federal government the power to force people to engage in commerce, they could have done so by writing "Congress shall have the power to compel commerce."

Words have meaning, at least to some people.

Let me telegram this post to the Supreme Court so they don't have to bother clarifying.

If it were that open and shut, there wouldn't be a debate.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

So how do you feel about being forced to buy car insurance?

As a general rule, I am not sure most people like being forced to do anything. That said, it depends on who is doing the forcing. The federal government lacks plenary police powers. The states, on the other hand, do have such powers and exercise them regularly. Everyone's favorite example is health care in Massachusetts. I personally think forcing an individual to purchase something merely because they exist is anathema to the "freedom" we are supposed to have in this country, but it is a difficult argument to make that the states do not have the authority to regulate for the public health.

The federal government has no such police power and no power to regulate for the public health. That power is specifically reserved to the states in the Constitution. This might be inconvenient for those in favor of the health reform law, but the law is the law. I must say though, I have enjoyed the aerobatics of the Solicitor General in trying to defend the law all over the country.

Originally Posted by DosEquis

How do you address the issue of someone going to the hospital without a method to pay for the services they recieve?

Direct subsidies/welfare for healthcare ala Paul Ryan's vision for Medicare. Give people redeemable "health care stamps" ala food stamps for private care plans. Set up a public option (which would be constitutional under the Taxing Power). Of course, these options were not available politically when HCR was passed, but constitutional legislation that does not command a majority does not give Congress the authority to pas unconstitutional legislation that does command a majority.

Originally Posted by DosEquis

You will be in the doctors office at some point in your life. There needs to be compensation to those who provide the services. Without it, we all pay more to accomodate for their lost cost recovery via those who don't pay.

Indeed, but one must stay within the confines of the law to achieve that end. For example, the government needs to protect us from terrorists, but I think I am safe in assuming no one here advocates for a round-up of all brown people "just to be sure." Same principle.

[CharlieK]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

You are being completely dishonest here. You claim "no" yet you use the term "ram that down everyone's throats" and "unconstitutionally forcing"? At least be a man and stand up for your hypocrisy.

I'll say one thing here. You are perhaps the best Projectionist I have seen to date.

[Salty Dog]

Michele Bachmann Wishes Elvis A Happy Birthday On...

I suppose she was just mistaken again...