dougd Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 And by the way...I am for single payer health care. The only part of this law I dont like is this tax/mandate. We are in agreement on a single payer system but thanks to political realities it was a non starter. Yes crux, payment for insurance, OR, payment of a TAX (as defined by Chief Justice Roberts) levied for NOT aquiring health insurance in 2014 and beyond. Bingo.....basically if you dont buy a product the government can tax you. What if they said you have to buy life insurance or take it a step further....buy a climbing rope or a bottle of water...and if you dont you get taxed and if you dont pay your tax you go to jail. Its a slippery slope. These arguments just don't wash. You're making it more difficult than it really is. It is simple. OUR Representative Government can tax us. They can also condemn your property and take it from you (eminent domain), and do a lot of other pretty unpleasant things for the GREATER GOOD. At our best, we are a country of shared sacrifices. Ask not what your country can do for you... d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougd Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 The supreme has ruled that the Commerce Clause does not grant congress the power to compel commercial participation. The government cannot force you to purchase a commercial product. The Government lost on that one. Rather, the government’s second argument prevailed: the taxation clause and precedent, in theory, empower to the government to levy a capitation tax, that is, a per capita tax, simply for existing. Given this, the court ruled that the much more limited power of taxing only those who choose not to comply with a government mandate is constitutional. The court agreed that Obamacare’s penalty, functionally, is, in fact, a tax. Bad news for businesses and politicians who seek to feather each others' nests and tea baggers who deny the constitutionality of this tax or that. The government may levy any tax it wishes to maintain the government, defense, and general welfare, as long as it's apportioned fairly amonst the states. Well reasoned and concise. Welcome back Pat d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 As much as I remember not being impressed with other posts of yours in other threads, these Tim and Eric clips you've been sticking up are the business. WOW THANKS BRO! I WORK HARD TO IMPRESS YOU SO THIS MEANS A LOT TO ME! DO YOU SIT DOWN WHEN YOU PEE? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 and do a lot of other pretty unpleasant things for the GREATER GOOD. Who's greater good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Greater Good was a Philistine. He lived from 77 to 109 AD, and he is chiefly known for his contribution to technology of a device which would later evolve to become the modern wheat thresher. He is also known for have 24 wives, by which he had 74 children...all whom he named Lesser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Leave it to spray to make clear whose children are the lessers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denalidave Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 yay, I brought pat out!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted June 29, 2012 Author Share Posted June 29, 2012 Do not confuse the greater or leaser good with the common good. It was a popular name back then. the common good were actually unrelated, and worked mostly in the royal yarnary (that's where the finest yarns were made). They were great craftsmen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 [video:youtube]tNCBoFxlgjM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burchey Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 As much as I remember not being impressed with other posts of yours in other threads, these Tim and Eric clips you've been sticking up are the business. WOW THANKS BRO! I WORK HARD TO IMPRESS YOU SO THIS MEANS A LOT TO ME! DO YOU SIT DOWN WHEN YOU PEE? You're in the wrong thread adios Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 and do a lot of other pretty unpleasant things for the GREATER GOOD. Who's greater good? [font:Arial Black]Vote Ron Paul![/font] [font:Century Gothic]He is the only hope for the USA[/font] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted June 29, 2012 Author Share Posted June 29, 2012 [font:Arial Black]Vote Ron Paul![/font] [font:Century Gothic]He is the only hope for the USA[/font] Ron Paul is the only candidate who is honest about wanting to destroy america! God bless him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 The Medicare Extension, which would have required States to provide extended benefits under penalty of losing all pre-existing Medicare funding, was struck down. The Constitution specifically enumerates the powers of the Government – all addition powers are relegated to the States, or to the People. The States are therefore free to adopt policies that go well beyond those enumerated by the Constitution for the Government to conduct the nitty gritty business of governance from building bridges to establishing traffic violation penalties. The Government may incentivize States to adopt policies that go beyond its own enumerated powers in exchange for federal funding, but it cannot coerce States to do so by denying those States pre-existing funding for services the State is already providing. The Court ruled that the Government’s threat of denying States who choose not to extend Medicare benefits all pre-existing Medicare funding was coercive and overstepped its powers. This ruling has far reaching potential consequences. It would presumably prohibit the Government from denying a State which chose to, say, legalize marijuana, from denying that State pre-existing federal funding for programs (transportation, education, etc) for which the State is already in compliance with Federal guidelines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Here's the bottom line. If health insruance is a public "good" why not just offer it as a service like fire, schools, and police. Why this BS about making you buy it from private vendors? Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Or would that be socialism? Like the Veterans Administration. THE FREE MARKET IS ALWAYS MORE EFFICIENT, INEXPENSIVE, AND MOST OF ALL MORAL! oh wait .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 What people seem not to understand, is that by having a disproportionate percentage of the population uninsured, not only are "we" (the insured population) paying for the inevitable costs of caring for the uninsured, but are paying much more when they show up at the ER with advanced diseases that could have been treated cheaper and yielded better outcomes had they had access to basic medical services to begin with. That's a big part of why the US pays more as percent GDP than any other country for poorer results. I'd like to see how the righties come up with the figures which they're trying to terrorize the Tea-tards with now which describes this a giant huge new tax burden on ordinary 'Muricans. I call BS. It's not like they aren't pathological liars already. Exactly. I can think of several studies i've read looking at elderly care and medicares costs per person that have all shown that it's much less expensive to pay up front with prevention, monitoring, and support than to pay on the back end for acute cases. Even going locally I had a chance to talk to some folks who worked at Harborview and were well versed in the topic and some local work had shown the cost in ER visits for local homeless folks per year was more than 2x what the cost would be to house them. Right now these same folks are all getting healthcare, it's just a shell game of when, where and who picks up the tab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 GOV'T SERVICES ARE ALWAYS MORE EFFICIENT, INEXPENSIVE, AND MOST OF ALL MORAL! oh wait .... Just as fake an argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted June 29, 2012 Author Share Posted June 29, 2012 WOW YOU GUYS FIGURED IT ALL OUT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Once again what does this have to do with this topic? Of course I will and do see doctors. I also have health care through my work which I pay for. If I choose not to work and not have health care the government would tax me for it. That is the part I dont agree with. You only get to "choose" not to have health care, if the rest of us get to "choose" to let you die in the street like a rat. Since the rest of us aren't willing to make choice (thank god), then you ARE going to consume health care whether you want to or not, and whether you can afford to pay or not. If you are willing to make that choice then maybe civilized society isn't the best place for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 GOV'T SERVICES ARE ALWAYS MORE EFFICIENT, INEXPENSIVE, AND MOST OF ALL MORAL! oh wait .... Just as fake an argument. Agreed. I never implied that Govt. was necessarily more efficient at everything, but it certainly is at some things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Once again what does this have to do with this topic? Of course I will and do see doctors. I also have health care through my work which I pay for. If I choose not to work and not have health care the government would tax me for it. That is the part I dont agree with. You only get to "choose" not to have health care, if the rest of us get to "choose" to let you die in the street like a rat. BS. Who dies in the street like a rat? Hyperbole does not make your argument, it just makes your argument stupid. Do you think that fellow who got his face chewed off was insured? Did he die like a rat? No, he was treated and is being treated and will undergo multiple surgeries. There are many valid arguments about what is wrong with our current health care system; your comment is not one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Once again what does this have to do with this topic? Of course I will and do see doctors. I also have health care through my work which I pay for. If I choose not to work and not have health care the government would tax me for it. That is the part I dont agree with. You only get to "choose" not to have health care, if the rest of us get to "choose" to let you die in the street like a rat. Since the rest of us aren't willing to make choice (thank god), then you ARE going to consume health care whether you want to or not, and whether you can afford to pay or not. If you are willing to make that choice then maybe civilized society isn't the best place for you. Health care is not a right or a privilege. It is a necessity. it is something that we all will use at some point in our lives. I agree with nate that it should be given to the public just like police and fire fighters. It comes out of our taxes just like the others. And people choose to not have health car all the time....most of these people are young and think they are immune to injury. Or they just cant afford it. If they wanted to raise my taxes by $3000 a year and have socialistic hospitals (like police and fire) then I would be all for it. Unfortunately capitalism gets in the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Once again what does this have to do with this topic? Of course I will and do see doctors. I also have health care through my work which I pay for. If I choose not to work and not have health care the government would tax me for it. That is the part I dont agree with. You only get to "choose" not to have health care, if the rest of us get to "choose" to let you die in the street like a rat. BS. Who dies in the street like a rat? Hyperbole does not make your argument, it just makes your argument stupid. Do you think that fellow who got his face chewed off was insured? Did he die like a rat? No, he was treated and is being treated and will undergo multiple surgeries. There are many valid arguments about what is wrong with our current health care system; your comment is not one of them. That's the whole point. As a society we aren't willing to let the uninsured NOT receive medical treatment if they need it. Which is why Kevbones "choice" not to be a healthcare consumer is an invalid one. Even if he doesn't want healthcare, the rest of us have decided he's going to get it if he needs it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 GOV'T SERVICES ARE ALWAYS MORE EFFICIENT, INEXPENSIVE, AND MOST OF ALL MORAL! oh wait .... Just as fake an argument. Agreed. I never implied that Govt. was necessarily more efficient at everything, but it certainly is at some things. Please tell me which things they are more efficient at. Be specific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Once again what does this have to do with this topic? Of course I will and do see doctors. I also have health care through my work which I pay for. If I choose not to work and not have health care the government would tax me for it. That is the part I dont agree with. You only get to "choose" not to have health care, if the rest of us get to "choose" to let you die in the street like a rat. BS. Who dies in the street like a rat? Hyperbole does not make your argument, it just makes your argument stupid. Do you think that fellow who got his face chewed off was insured? Did he die like a rat? No, he was treated and is being treated and will undergo multiple surgeries. There are many valid arguments about what is wrong with our current health care system; your comment is not one of them. That's the whole point. As a society we aren't willing to let the uninsured NOT receive medical treatment if they need it. Which is why Kevbones "choice" not to be a healthcare consumer is an invalid one. Even if he doesn't want healthcare, the rest of us have decided he's going to get it if he needs it. Let me be clear. I pay for health care. I have because I need it. But if I wanted to....I could drop it. After 2014 I will not have the choice anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted June 29, 2012 Author Share Posted June 29, 2012 Agreed. I never implied that Govt. was necessarily more efficient at everything, but it certainly is at some things. Please tell me which things they are more efficient at. Be specific. Police & fire departments, for example. National defense. You're confusing, kevbone. On the one hand you say you want the government to provide health care, but on the other hand you act like you think the government is too big and spout all this Ron Paul rhetoric, like closing the FDA and the EPA. One of these is not like the other, you know. It's really fucking annoying, it's like you don't even understand your own positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.