American Revolution 2.0

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Brett Dumain:
And less than 50% voted for Billy Jeff in his second (if not his first) term.

Also way to assume that I supported Bush's actions.

The Feds have no business dealing with either-it should ultimately be left up to the states (at least in terms of abortion.) Barring that, all consenting adults should be allowed to enter into contracts both parties agree to without coercion. Which is another angle, interestingly, one could take with this health care ruling

Honestly, on Obamacare? I'm ambivalent. I'm not extremely compelled to defend it one way or the other. What I'm compelled to do here is make sure you're aware this goes both ways. It abhors you that the Democrats would want to make sure everybody buys something everybody will need at some point in their life? Something which if they don't purchase the expenses would eventually come from the fed anyway? We already make people buy auto insurance, I don't see anybody trying to incite a revolution about that.

But I'll tell you what abhors me: the fact that Republicans are banging on about this being unconstitutional, and then having the gall to act like the first amendment doesn't apply to their religious values. The fact that while they're whining about how the Democrats are trying to establish a socialist system, they're doing their damnedest to set up a theocracy. Obamacare doesn't bother me, but all the people in DC and in the south who think that their personal values have a place in other people's lives via the legislative system absolutely terrify me. You could argue with people about whether or not this would have been something the colonists would have wanted. But both you and I know for a fact the main reason the pilgrims were so compelled to cross the ocean in the first place was because British rulers were trying so hard to tell them what religious values they should hold. If the Republicans want to know who's betraying their roots, perhaps they should stop looking over the fence and start grabbing for a mirror.

I'm not saying the Democrats are perfect, but I am saying it irks me how sanctimonious and true to the constitution the Republicans think they are as they happily torch their choice parts of it.

Blablahb:

Brett Dumain:
Amendment X to the US Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Well, then we're done about this topic are we? Then mandatory health insurance is allowed on various grounds:

1 - the 14th amendment that's about public health, since Obamacare is part of safeguarding public health
2 - any other legislation that has to do with the interests of the people, since US healthcare is going to fall apart under the pressure of an aging population otherwise
3 - any law that charges the federal government to safeguard the United States, because the future of healthcare is a matter of national importance
4 - the fact that people elected Obama, since the power is with the people. Well, the people have spoken, and they want universal healthcare.

All of those are reasons that the STATES (not the Federal government, the States as individual States) may so enact healthcare legislation. The Feds have no such claim under ANY reading of the Constitution. Nice try though.

pffh:
Sorry but am I understanding it right that you (and a bunch of other americans) are actually angry that the state is helping people? As in you oppose the state helping people? I'm not really getting why you are so angry since healthcare should be free. That is payed for by everyone through taxes so that everyone has access to it.

Because they are doing it through extralegal means. If someone breaks into your house, steals your money, and the police dont do anything about it, thatd piss you off too. And rightfully so. Same logic here.

McMullen:

Its really quite simple, if you care to actually LISTEN. The Federal Government is NOT empowered to FORCE someone to buy a product. Period, full stop.

Yes it is, and it does. Car insurance, passport photos, vehicle registration, smog testing, and so on. You might say this is different because it is possible to go through life avoiding all those things but not this one, but pretty much everybody goes to the hospital sometime, so they should have insurance for it.[/quote]
No it isnt, and no it doesnt. Car insurance is a state issue, passports are immigration/naturalization, and smog testing is another overreach on the part of the Feds through the unconstitutional EPA. Nice try though

Brett Dumain:

pffh:
Sorry but am I understanding it right that you (and a bunch of other americans) are actually angry that the state is helping people? As in you oppose the state helping people? I'm not really getting why you are so angry since healthcare should be free. That is payed for by everyone through taxes so that everyone has access to it.

Because they are doing it through extralegal means. If someone breaks into your house, steals your money, and the police dont do anything about it, thatd piss you off too. And rightfully so. Same logic here.

Sorry but taxes are not even close to be similar to theft. Again THIS HELPS PEOPLE they are doing what a government should be doing and that is making sure it's population is as healthy, safe and prosperous as they can be. This harms no one and does only good so I do not see how anyone could be opposed to universal healthcare.

pffh:
Sorry but taxes are not even close to be similar to theft.

You're talking to an American conservative. They think taxation of any form is punishment and theft because they don't know how money works. Also, you'd think conservatives would be happy about the mandate. It's making people take responsibility for their health. Do they suddenly not like responsibility?

DrVornoff:

Katatori-kun:
For one thing, that whole "no taxation without representation" thing was about wanting representation in Parliament, the legislative body of the country.

That and they were pissed off that taxes were being levied on them in order to pay for a large tax cut for the East India Trading Company which, just on principle, was a pretty shitty thing to do.

Incorrect; the taxes were levied because the British just finished fighting and winning the French and Indian War, which the colonists started, were the sole benifactors of and tried to break the terms of the peace agreement by heading west and trying to settle in Indian lands. And it was a tax only on goods sold from British Merchant ships, while most colonists used the independent ships that didn't have these taxes on.

It was entirely about the principle of it rather than it actually being an inconvience.

On topic, it's all talk from these guys. I doubt these 5 million that Brett is convienced exist could co-operate long enough to organise lunch, let alone launch a rebellion.

pffh:

Brett Dumain:

pffh:
Sorry but am I understanding it right that you (and a bunch of other americans) are actually angry that the state is helping people? As in you oppose the state helping people? I'm not really getting why you are so angry since healthcare should be free. That is payed for by everyone through taxes so that everyone has access to it.

Because they are doing it through extralegal means. If someone breaks into your house, steals your money, and the police dont do anything about it, thatd piss you off too. And rightfully so. Same logic here.

Sorry but taxes are not even close to be similar to theft. Again THIS HELPS PEOPLE they are doing what a government should be doing and that is making sure it's population is as healthy, safe and prosperous as they can be. This harms no one and does only good so I do not see how anyone could be opposed to universal healthcare.

Because our Federal government is not empowered to force people to buy health insurance. its not like Britain of old where the King could do whatever he wanted because he ruled with God's authority. You read too much into my metaphor, I was simply pointing out that if someone broke the law and the police, who are charged with upholding the law, did nothing then you would be pretty damn pissed. Thats where the anger comes from.

Brett Dumain:

pffh:
Sorry but am I understanding it right that you (and a bunch of other americans) are actually angry that the state is helping people? As in you oppose the state helping people? I'm not really getting why you are so angry since healthcare should be free. That is payed for by everyone through taxes so that everyone has access to it.

Because they are doing it through extralegal means. If someone breaks into your house, steals your money, and the police dont do anything about it, thatd piss you off too. And rightfully so. Same logic here.

Funny you mention police when...taxes fund policemen, their tools, networks....things that keep us safe.

There's nothing illegal about this. It's not about it being unfair or anything. People are greedy. They don't want everyone to have access to health care because they don't care about other people enough to help them. There is no "same logic here". The state implements programs in order to help citizens, to implement these programs the state collects taxes. Whether it's healthcare, roads, firemen, whatever taxes pay for them.

The state implements things, in theory to help things, people are forced to have liscences to practice medicine, we use taxes to pay for roads etc.

DrVornoff:

pffh:
Sorry but taxes are not even close to be similar to theft.

You're talking to an American conservative. They think taxation of any form is punishment and theft because they don't know how money works. Also, you'd think conservatives would be happy about the mandate. It's making people take responsibility for their health. Do they suddenly not like responsibility?

Zomg as much as I disagree with you Vornoff that there is the funny. And there's a difference between taxation and punitive taxation. You claim to be a smart guy, Im sure you can figure it out.

I love, still, that if congress passes a tax break to the tune of thousands of dollars to incentive me to live in a pro-christian lifestyle that's not overstepping their bounds, but if they pass a tax break to the tune of fuck nothing to incentive me to buy something that I probably already have if I qualify for the tax break, that's coercion.

That's the way the right's mind works. States rights and the constitution are this fluid thing that allow them to do anything they want as long as it's what they wanted to do in the first place.

They want small government as long as that smallness is in favor of letting large corporations and churches dictate my life for me, but suddenly they want big government when it comes to telling me who I can marry and exactly when and how I can have sex with them.

They want fiscal responsibility when it comes to balancing the budget of medical aid to the elderly or poor, but suddenly don't give a shit about fiscal responsibility when it comes to balancing the military budget or in tax breaks for the rich or when it comes time to pay for a bill that every single other individual part is super popular.

They see the government as 'losing' money if that money ends up in the hands of the lower or middle classes, but see it as 'spending' money if that money ends up in the hands of the rich. They see if a rich person earns money specifically to destroy jobs or send them overseas that marks them as a 'job creator', but if a poor person spends money in a way that actively creates demand and creates jobs that's seen as nothing at all.

They're for states rights to decide something like marriage, but against repealing the Defense of Marriage Act which supersedes a state's right to decide their marriage laws. They're for a church's right to define marriage and want government to give them the religious freedom to do so, unless that church happens to define marriage in a way they didn't expect or want, then they want the government to come down and decide it for them.

They want their religious freedom to not be bullied or coerced because of their religion, but then demand loopholes in anti-bullying legislation that retains them the ability to bully other people's children and claim it as their religious right.

They want us to live by their religion and then spit on their own god and messiah's faces by idolizing the golden bull in Wall Street and by withholding funds to help the poor in favor of gearing up their war machines. But at the same time they want to tack the 10 commandments to public buildings even though their religion is supposed to be practiced in private so remind the rest of us of the rules they themselves refuse to fucking abide by.

They get upset that a video game made by a single guy in their basement contains fantasy violence against Tea Party members, but their Tea Party leadership condones actual real violence against actual real people.

They demand comedians that only barely educates people better than them learning nothing at all be held to a higher standard of journalism then watch news networks that actively educates people worse than if they'd learned nothing at all. And if called out on it, they hide behind "I know it's called Fox News and the logo says 'News' while you watch, but they're not really the news, it's a pundit".

They're the party that if their president tortures people and indefinitely detains them without trial that questioning it is treason and unpatriotic, but somebody else's president passes a law that's found to be constitutional that not only should you question it, but you should threaten actual treason.

I could do this all day long. You guys are a laugh a minute. I really almost hope you guys do pile all up in Texas and leave the nation. In 20 years we'll be having another immigration fence debate to keep Texans out of America and to keep Texans from stealing our jobs.

Brett Dumain:

DrVornoff:

pffh:
Sorry but taxes are not even close to be similar to theft.

You're talking to an American conservative. They think taxation of any form is punishment and theft because they don't know how money works. Also, you'd think conservatives would be happy about the mandate. It's making people take responsibility for their health. Do they suddenly not like responsibility?

Zomg as much as I disagree with you Vornoff that there is the funny. And there's a difference between taxation and punitive taxation. You claim to be a smart guy, Im sure you can figure it out.

Ooh, I know the difference. It's punitive when you don't like what it's used for, and it's 'normal' taxation when it goes towards killing people you don't like?

Brett Dumain:

pffh:

Brett Dumain:

Because they are doing it through extralegal means. If someone breaks into your house, steals your money, and the police dont do anything about it, thatd piss you off too. And rightfully so. Same logic here.

Sorry but taxes are not even close to be similar to theft. Again THIS HELPS PEOPLE they are doing what a government should be doing and that is making sure it's population is as healthy, safe and prosperous as they can be. This harms no one and does only good so I do not see how anyone could be opposed to universal healthcare.

Because our Federal government is not empowered to force people to buy health insurance. its not like Britain of old where the King could do whatever he wanted because he ruled with God's authority. You read too much into my metaphor, I was simply pointing out that if someone broke the law and the police, who are charged with upholding the law, did nothing then you would be pretty damn pissed. Thats where the anger comes from.

Then the law is unjust and useless and should be changed. If a law actively hinders the government in helping people that law should, no MUST be changed. That is what you should be angry about not that the government is trying to help its subjects but that (at least according to you) the law is archaic, useless and unjust.

Damien Granz:
I love, still, that if congress passes a tax break to the tune of thousands of dollars to incentive me to live in a pro-christian lifestyle that's not overstepping their bounds, but if they pass a tax break to the tune of fuck nothing to incentive me to buy something that I probably already have if I qualify for the tax break, that's coercion.

That's the way the right's mind works. States rights and the constitution are this fluid thing that allow them to do anything they want as long as it's what they wanted to do in the first place.

They want small government as long as that smallness is in favor of letting large corporations and churches dictate my life for me, but suddenly they want big government when it comes to telling me who I can marry and exactly when and how I can have sex with them.

They want fiscal responsibility when it comes to balancing the budget of medical aid to the elderly or poor, but suddenly don't give a shit about fiscal responsibility when it comes to balancing the military budget or in tax breaks for the rich or when it comes time to pay for a bill that every single other individual part is super popular.

They see the government as 'losing' money if that money ends up in the hands of the lower or middle classes, but see it as 'spending' money if that money ends up in the hands of the rich. They see if a rich person earns money specifically to destroy jobs or send them overseas that marks them as a 'job creator', but if a poor person spends money in a way that actively creates demand and creates jobs that's seen as nothing at all.

They're for states rights to decide something like marriage, but against repealing the Defense of Marriage Act which supersedes a state's right to decide their marriage laws. They're for a church's right to define marriage and want government to give them the religious freedom to do so, unless that church happens to define marriage in a way they didn't expect or want, then they want the government to come down and decide it for them.

They want their religious freedom to not be bullied or coerced because of their religion, but then demand loopholes in anti-bullying legislation that retains them the ability to bully other people's children and claim it as their religious right.

They want us to live by their religion and then spit on their own god and messiah's faces by idolizing the golden bull in Wall Street and by withholding funds to help the poor in favor of gearing up their war machines. But at the same time they want to tack the 10 commandments to public buildings even though their religion is supposed to be practiced in private so remind the rest of us of the rules they themselves refuse to fucking abide by.

They get upset that a video game made by a single guy in their basement contains fantasy violence against Tea Party members, but their Tea Party leadership condones actual real violence against actual real people.

They demand comedians that only barely educates people better than them learning nothing at all be held to a higher standard of journalism then watch news networks that actively educates people worse than if they'd learned nothing at all. And if called out on it, they hide behind "I know it's called Fox News and the logo says 'News' while you watch, but they're not really the news, it's a pundit".

They're the party that if their president tortures people and indefinitely detains them without trial that questioning it is treason and unpatriotic, but somebody else's president passes a law that's found to be constitutional that not only should you question it, but you should threaten actual treason.

I could do this all day long. You guys are a laugh a minute. I really almost hope you guys do pile all up in Texas and leave the nation. In 20 years we'll be having another immigration fence debate to keep Texans out of America and to keep Texans from stealing our jobs.

There may be a strawman in there but I really don't care or find offense to it because so much of that is true it makes me sad. Oh, the lack of a real, smart conservative party.

Brett Dumain:
Zomg as much as I disagree with you Vornoff that there is the funny. And there's a difference between taxation and punitive taxation. You claim to be a smart guy, Im sure you can figure it out.

Again, can I please have some of whatever it is you're smoking? That sounds like some good shit.

Let me ask you. Do you have health insurance? A simple yes or no, please.

recruit00:

There may be a straw man in there but I really don't care or find offense to it because so much of that is true it makes me sad. Oh, the lack of a real, smart conservative party.

It'd be a straw man, I do agree, if the Republican Party ran on any of the ideals its constituency base believes it runs on. The constituency may be crazy, and it may not be crazy, it may be right or it may be wrong, but their party hasn't done a damn thing it's said it's doing or a damn thing it's constituency believes it's doing for like, 30 years now.

But yeah, we do have a real conservative party. They're called Democrats.

DrVornoff:

Brett Dumain:
Zomg as much as I disagree with you Vornoff that there is the funny. And there's a difference between taxation and punitive taxation. You claim to be a smart guy, Im sure you can figure it out.

Again, can I please have some of whatever it is you're smoking? That sounds like some good shit.

Let me ask you. Do you have health insurance? A simple yes or no, please.

I was actually refering to your dig about responsibility. Actually gave me a chuckle. You seem tense man, perhaps a little more o the ganja would help with that?

Health insurance: No

pffh:

Then the law is unjust and useless and should be changed. If a law actively hinders the government in helping people that law should, no MUST be changed. That is what you should be angry about not that the government is trying to help its subjects but that (at least according to you) the law is archaic, useless and unjust.

Archaic maybe, but not useless or unjust. It is not government's role to be your mommy, its more akin to a good dad, sticking up for you in a fight (the military) but otherwise leaving you to your own devices, provided you dont hurt someone else in the process.

Brett Dumain:
I was actually refering to your dig about responsibility. Actually gave me a chuckle.

That was how Romney sold the individual mandate in Massachusetts. It was all about responsibility. It's a Republican idea.

You seem tense man, perhaps a little more o the ganja would help with that?

What doesn't it fix?

Health insurance: No

Do you think this is a good thing for you?

Brett Dumain:
It is not government's role to be your mommy, its more akin to a good dad,

I didn't think you had woman issues until this exact moment.

Anyway, your idea of a government's job is bullshit. Do you have any idea how many hand-outs you've taken from the government already?

Brett Dumain:

pffh:

Then the law is unjust and useless and should be changed. If a law actively hinders the government in helping people that law should, no MUST be changed. That is what you should be angry about not that the government is trying to help its subjects but that (at least according to you) the law is archaic, useless and unjust.

Archaic maybe, but not useless or unjust. It is not government's role to be your mommy, its more akin to a good dad, sticking up for you in a fight (the military) but otherwise leaving you to your own devices, provided you dont hurt someone else in the process.

You are right the government shouldn't act like its peoples parent. It should act like its peoples government and if like you say the law prevents it in doing that the law must be changed. The government should make sure everyone has access to healthcare just like it should make sure there is a fire and police departments and other necessary things like roads and stuff. If the law prevents it in making sure these things exist and are maintained then it's not only a useless law it's a harmful law.

And a good dad doesn't support you in a fight he makes sure that you don't get in a fight in the first place and if for some reason you do he has the necessary things needed to patch you back up.

DrVornoff:

Brett Dumain:
I was actually refering to your dig about responsibility. Actually gave me a chuckle.

That was how Romney sold the individual mandate in Massachusetts. It was all about responsibility. It's a Republican idea.

You seem tense man, perhaps a little more o the ganja would help with that?

What doesn't it fix?

Health insurance: No

Do you think this is a good thing for you?

Brett Dumain:
It is not government's role to be your mommy, its more akin to a good dad,

I didn't think you had woman issues until this exact moment.

Anyway, your idea of a government's job is bullshit. Do you have any idea how many hand-outs you've taken from the government already?

Unless your father never disciplined you, he obviously had a set of rules he expected you to follow. The same goes with the federal government. They were given the power to build roads, collect duties and imposts, etc, as outlined in the Constitution and its amendments. If it isnt a power of the Fed, they cannot legally exercise it. That is how a federal republic works. If you dont like it, move to Canada or Europe.As an aside, the fact that you are 27 and still cant grasp that there are rules and boundaries in life that cannot be broken frankly astounds me.

As for my health insurance, in the long run I know I will need it, but the onus is on me to provide it for myself through some means or another (not extralegal mind you).

pffh:

You are right the government shouldn't act like its peoples parent. It should act like its peoples government and if like you say the law prevents it in doing that the law must be changed. The government should make sure everyone has access to healthcare just like it should make sure there is a fire and police departments and other necessary things like roads and stuff. If the law prevents it in making sure these things exist and are maintained then it's not only a useless law it's a harmful law.

And a good dad doesn't support you in a fight he makes sure that you don't get in a fight in the first place and if for some reason you do he has the necessary things needed to patch you back up.

Obviously you either cant or wont grasp this concept. Making you buy something you dont want is not the purview of government, at least not at the federal level. To use your fire example, there is no national fire service in the US, nor has one ever been proposed (to my knowledge). Yet ever town has a fire department, without a law being necessary to create one. Because the local citizens empowered their town governments to tax them to pay for a fire department for their protection. Those same citizens have NOT empowered the federal government to make them buy health insurance. Its as simple as that. Its not a moral question its a legal question and legally it can not be done, save for the citizens empowering the federal government to do so, which again they have not. If you still cant understand this point there is very little else I can do to help you see it.

Brett Dumain:
If you dont like it, move to Canada or Europe.

Where in the Constitution does it say, "Love it or leave it?"

As an aside, the fact that you are 27 and still cant grasp that there are rules and boundaries in life that cannot be broken frankly astounds me.

No that's just some bullshit you made up because you know fuck all about what my opinions actually are. Note that I never explicitly stated any. For all you know, I'm just fucking with you.

Besides kid, the whole point is that the Supreme Court ruled the law constitutional. That means it's over. You want to get rid of the law? Elect people who are going to repeal it. Or, even better, elect people who will replace the mandate with a public option. Otherwise, your side lost.

As for my health insurance, in the long run I know I will need it, but the onus is on me to provide it for myself through some means or another (not extralegal mind you).

Uh huh. And if you don't have health insurance, the cost of your healthcare is ultimately falling to taxpayers like me anyway. Freeloader.

Also, I'll bet my bottom dollar that the day you qualify for Medicare, that card is going straight in your wallet. You're going to take that government-run healthcare and defend your right to keep it tooth and nail. Same story every time.

Brett Dumain:
Yet ever town has a fire department, without a law being necessary to create one. Because the local citizens empowered their town governments to tax them to pay for a fire department for their protection.

Stupid commies. Don't they know that the onus of putting out fires should be on them? After all, the fire is on their property. Why should my tax money go to helping people who were so careless as to leave the stove on? They should take some responsibility and take care of it themselves.

Brett Dumain:

pffh:

You are right the government shouldn't act like its peoples parent. It should act like its peoples government and if like you say the law prevents it in doing that the law must be changed. The government should make sure everyone has access to healthcare just like it should make sure there is a fire and police departments and other necessary things like roads and stuff. If the law prevents it in making sure these things exist and are maintained then it's not only a useless law it's a harmful law.

And a good dad doesn't support you in a fight he makes sure that you don't get in a fight in the first place and if for some reason you do he has the necessary things needed to patch you back up.

Obviously you either cant or wont grasp this concept. Making you buy something you dont want is not the purview of government, at least not at the federal level. To use your fire example, there is no national fire service in the US, nor has one ever been proposed (to my knowledge). Yet ever town has a fire department, without a law being necessary to create one. Because the local citizens empowered their town governments to tax them to pay for a fire department for their protection. Those same citizens have NOT empowered the federal government to make them buy health insurance. Its as simple as that. Its not a moral question its a legal question and legally it can not be done, save for the citizens empowering the federal government to do so, which again they have not. If you still cant understand this point there is very little else I can do to help you see it.

No they aren't making you buy something that you do not want they are making it so that people that need help have easier access to the help that they need and if "the people" have not "empowered" the government to be able to do that then those people are idiots and the government should be given the power to do this.

It sounds to me that it's time for the US to either unite or split. You simply can not and you should not have so many different laws governing people differently in the same country. Everyone in the country should be governed by the same laws since otherwise you will end up with a clusterfuck where some thing that is legal in one town is illegal in the next town over and that simply will not do.

pffh:

No they aren't making you buy something that you do not want they are making it so that people that need help have easier access to the help that they need and if "the people" have not "empowered" the government to be able to do that then those people are idiots and the government should be given the power to do this.

It sounds to me that it's time for the US to either unite or split. You simply can not and you should not have so many different laws governing people differently in the same country. Everyone in the country should be governed by the same laws since otherwise you will end up with a clusterfuck where some thing that is legal in one town is illegal in the next town over and that simply will not do.

Yes they are. Im too damn tired to find a link but google "individual mandate" and you will find the exact provision I am opposed to.

All I will say is, if a Constitutional amendment was added (which is the only way this can be done legally) allowing the US Government to force you to buy healthcare, then I would have no objection. I wouldnt like it, but the government would finally have the legal backing to do what its attempting now.

Brett Dumain:

pffh:

No they aren't making you buy something that you do not want they are making it so that people that need help have easier access to the help that they need and if "the people" have not "empowered" the government to be able to do that then those people are idiots and the government should be given the power to do this.

It sounds to me that it's time for the US to either unite or split. You simply can not and you should not have so many different laws governing people differently in the same country. Everyone in the country should be governed by the same laws since otherwise you will end up with a clusterfuck where some thing that is legal in one town is illegal in the next town over and that simply will not do.

Yes they are. Im too damn tired to find a link but google "individual mandate" and you will find the exact provision I am opposed to.

All I will say is, if a Constitutional amendment was added (which is the only way this can be done legally) allowing the US Government to force you to buy healthcare, then I would have no objection. I wouldnt like it, but the government would finally have the legal backing to do what its attempting now.

They do have legal backing; they have the power to tax people, and they aren't strictly speaking forcing you to buy healthcare. You don't have to buy it, you just get a tax. That is perfectly within the bounds of their power, since the body filled with actual experts on the matter have ruled it that way.

pffh:
No they aren't making you buy something that you do not want they are making it so that people that need help have easier access to the help that they need and if "the people" have not "empowered" the government to be able to do that then those people are idiots and the government should be given the power to do this.

It sounds to me that it's time for the US to either unite or split. You simply can not and you should not have so many different laws governing people differently in the same country. Everyone in the country should be governed by the same laws since otherwise you will end up with a clusterfuck where some thing that is legal in one town is illegal in the next town over and that simply will not do.

To be fair, state laws do have their place. Would it be fair to apply the same carbon/emissions limits to New York and, say Wyoming (where there are natural forest fires and emissions from Yellowstone which cause major spikes in carbon emissions, but are perfectly natural and necessary for the forest's existence)? And local governments are good because they're, well, local. There are lots of ordinances and local matters which would just be annoying to deal with on a national level. And not all states need the same tax rates, and neither do they all need them distributed the same.

Social issues should be natural, of course. Human rights and all that. And that's sort of what I see healthcare as--a social issue. If a homeless man gets cancer, he deserves treatment. No ifs, ands, or buts. Nobody deserves healthcare more than anyone else, nobody should have to decide between paying the rent or paying for treatment, and nobody should be worried about whether or not they have enough money to cover some random, cataclysmic health emergency. We have better things to be doing with our time. And the financial burden of unpaid medical bills usually falls on the government in the end anyway, in one way or another, so this just eliminates the stress and uncertainty of it all, and prevents people from getting trapped into deadly spirals of medical debt.

Shaoken:

Brett Dumain:

pffh:

No they aren't making you buy something that you do not want they are making it so that people that need help have easier access to the help that they need and if "the people" have not "empowered" the government to be able to do that then those people are idiots and the government should be given the power to do this.

It sounds to me that it's time for the US to either unite or split. You simply can not and you should not have so many different laws governing people differently in the same country. Everyone in the country should be governed by the same laws since otherwise you will end up with a clusterfuck where some thing that is legal in one town is illegal in the next town over and that simply will not do.

Yes they are. Im too damn tired to find a link but google "individual mandate" and you will find the exact provision I am opposed to.

All I will say is, if a Constitutional amendment was added (which is the only way this can be done legally) allowing the US Government to force you to buy healthcare, then I would have no objection. I wouldnt like it, but the government would finally have the legal backing to do what its attempting now.

They do have legal backing; they have the power to tax people, and they aren't strictly speaking forcing you to buy healthcare. You don't have to buy it, you just get a tax. That is perfectly within the bounds of their power, since the body filled with actual experts on the matter have ruled it that way.

Which is the whole reason I created this thread. Its a clear abrogation of the rule of law, as now COngress can violate any tenent of the Constitution by claiming its simply a tax and within their power.

Lilani:

pffh:
No they aren't making you buy something that you do not want they are making it so that people that need help have easier access to the help that they need and if "the people" have not "empowered" the government to be able to do that then those people are idiots and the government should be given the power to do this.

It sounds to me that it's time for the US to either unite or split. You simply can not and you should not have so many different laws governing people differently in the same country. Everyone in the country should be governed by the same laws since otherwise you will end up with a clusterfuck where some thing that is legal in one town is illegal in the next town over and that simply will not do.

To be fair, state laws do have their place. Would it be fair to apply the same carbon/emissions limits to New York and, say Wyoming (where there are natural forest fires and emissions from Yellowstone which cause major spikes in carbon emissions, but are perfectly natural and necessary for the forest's existence)? And local governments are good because they're, well, local. There are lots of ordinances and local matters which would just be annoying to deal with on a national level. And not all states need the same tax rates, and neither do they all need them distributed the same.

Social issues should be natural, of course. Human rights and all that. And that's sort of what I see healthcare as--a social issue. If a homeless man gets cancer, he deserves treatment. No ifs, ands, or buts. Nobody deserves healthcare more than anyone else, nobody should have to decide between paying the rent or paying for treatment, and nobody should be worried about whether or not they have enough money to cover some random, cataclysmic health emergency. We have better things to be doing with our time. And the financial burden of unpaid medical bills usually falls on the government in the end anyway, in one way or another, so this just eliminates the stress and uncertainty of it all, and prevents people from getting trapped into deadly spirals of medical debt.

Aye I can agree with that.

Brett Dumain:

Shaoken:

Brett Dumain:

Yes they are. Im too damn tired to find a link but google "individual mandate" and you will find the exact provision I am opposed to.

All I will say is, if a Constitutional amendment was added (which is the only way this can be done legally) allowing the US Government to force you to buy healthcare, then I would have no objection. I wouldnt like it, but the government would finally have the legal backing to do what its attempting now.

They do have legal backing; they have the power to tax people, and they aren't strictly speaking forcing you to buy healthcare. You don't have to buy it, you just get a tax. That is perfectly within the bounds of their power, since the body filled with actual experts on the matter have ruled it that way.

Which is the whole reason I created this thread. Its a clear abrogation of the rule of law, as now COngress can violate any tenent of the Constitution by claiming its simply a tax and within their power.

That's not how it works. The Supreme Court ruled that that specific mandate can count as a tax, and that it didn't violate the constition. How is it a violation? Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean that it's against any tenent of the constition.

Brett Dumain:
The colonists were pissed about taxes certainly, but also they felt that HRM George III WAS TAKING AWAY THEIR RIGHTS AS ENGLISHMEN.

Exactly. Like I just said, taking away their right to representation in Parliament. You are represented in Congress. Your situation is completely different.

and there are enough people who suitably feel (rightly or wrongly) that their rights are being repressed that an armed conflict is brewing.

"Feeling" your rights are repressed is not the same thing as actually being repressed. Claiming to have your rights repressed when you don't get everything you want 100% of the time is to engage in childish tantrum-throwing. Under our lawful system of government, health care passed. It's not a tyranny just because you don't like it.

You also forget that the majority of people with those grievances are heavily armed.

And if they want to get violent as a part of their tantrum throwing then I fully support the government responding with full force. But they won't get violent. Oh sure, maybe a couple of random people who are genuinely mentally disturbed might unleash some violence. But most people will grumble, rant, and then move on with their lives. Especially when they realize that this health care plan that is so vilified by the right will do no more harm than merely helping the US reduce the gap that it lags behind the rest of the civilized world when it comes to health care.

It's also worth noting that the Revolutionary War was not necessary for American independence. Canada, Australia, and the other former colonies demonstrate well the fact that independence can just as easily be achieved peacefully.

And by the way, take a close look at the timeline of the US revolution. Several times it appeared that there might be a peaceful solution that pleased everyone, only for mob action to drive us towards more violence.

Brett Dumain:

DJjaffacake:

Brett Dumain:
When the war comes, where will you stand?

Across the pond, chuckling in bemusement as some random guy charges at Congress all on his lonesome.

Glad to get a foreign perspective......but instead of one, imagine about 5 million....

OK, I will; it's not pleasant, imagining all those burned corpses and maimed people, but if you insist. Also: 5 million, LULZATHON, it'll be Billy-Joe-Bob and his cousin-brother-father Ted, their dog, some hobos, and about 2000 survivalist nutjobs, and they'd be dead inside a week.

Get a grip Captain Disaster. For a start, I find it fucking hilarious that, in your loonytoons world, a system passed into law entirely within the bounds of the existing system by the democratically elected head of your state being validated by the highest court in the land as part of an extended legal process equates to "the breakdown of the rule of law". It's the very definition of the exact fucking opposite, the fact that you and your fellow wingnuts disagree with the final conclusion doesn't change that.

Further, we in the rest of the civilised world have been living in your fevered distopian nightmare for quite a wee while now, and there appears to be a distinct lack of gas chambers, death panels, forced euthenisation of the elderly, power-mad dictators, or any of the rest of the type of paranoid fantasies being bandied about by certain people.

If you don't like "Obamacare", vote against the administration at the free and democratic election you have coming up in, what is it, four or five months? Or, you know, continue your pointlessly transparent saber rattling; just realise that we all know you're just a small person who's reaction to political defeat is to engage in violent fantasising he'll never act on.

It is unlikely that a violent revolution will occur in our lives in the United States, and if one does, do you really think it will be the political Right, which already control most facets of government, driven to such measures?

edit

...I'm gonna plead Poe's law on the OP. I literally can't tell if it's a troll or a living, thinking* human being that sees armed conflict as the first logical response to this law being upheld.

Brett Dumain:
Which is the whole reason I created this thread. Its a clear abrogation of the rule of law, as now COngress can violate any tenent of the Constitution by claiming its simply a tax and within their power.

Well if that's true (I don't care enough to figure it out), then your beef should not be with Congress or the Act itself, but with a poorly-constructed Constitution. Congress is not breaking the law, here. If you don't like that fact, tough. Instead of making up crap about how we're one step away from oligarchical Dystopia, try acknowledging the fact that the Constitution allows laws such as the Affordable Care Act and that you are mad about that fact. The Supreme Court ruled the bill constitutional - if you want to complain about it, calling it "a clear abrogation of the rule of law" is the worst way to go about it. Call it bad policy if you wish, but the highest court in the land says your legal argument is full of crap.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked