Constitutional Challenges to Dem's Forced Socialist Healthcare

[Canceled.LTroll.7]

You should not change what I said and present it as such.

That is representative of the dishonesty in liberal debaters. They have to lie to make a point.

I agree totally.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

. That's not the point and you know it. Comparing other constitutional democracies to ours is valid and the point is, if they can do it within their laws, then so can we.

That is absolutely the point. other countries were not formed like ours was. disregarding that entire legal doctrine is the basis for talk of armed rebellion.

That's a straw man argument. No one is saying insurance is a right. They are saying access to adequate health care at a reasonable cost is a right.

that right already exists in the free market enterprise. Just because you don't like the higher expense does not mean it can be annulled.

That comment shows how clueless you are about this issue. Why do you think people do that? It's because they either do not have access, cannot afford the skyrocketing cost and thus wait till a health care problem becomes a crises or a combination of both.

I speak from experience. I have no insurance. I've gone to doctors for things that simple home remedies cannot fix. It's cost me between 40 and 150 dollars. this is way less expensive than ER visits. Don't even try to convince me of your BS argument.

You got that backwards son. You're the one who'd brown nosing the insurance companies. The public good comes before their right to maximize profits at our expense and the public good.

I'm the one declaring insurance programs a scam to the public and you say I am the one brown nosing? you are a plain fool.

Mandating that everyone maintain some health care coverage is one of the 3 proven principles of health care reform that works in controlling cost. It is the first important step that MUST be taken and if you don't comprehend this then you don't even belong in this conversation as you are grossly uninformed about health care issues.

wrong. it's a proven principle of guaranteeing a profit to insurance companies. ask topspin if you dare. you are grossly ignorant of the entire issue. your strawman of authority is useless. I can see you can't comprehend even simple matters of economics.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Mandating that anyone buy a good or service at the federal level IS unprecedented. Which means that the Supreme Court will have to decide and they should do the right thing and stop this terrible act of socialism and restriction on freedom.

OK fine. We'll just prohibit health insurance companies all together as violating anti-trust laws and create a public health care system, not unlike we did for public education, and increase taxes to pay for it, which works out cheaper in the long run as you'd only have about a 6% increase in your taxes which is significantly less then what you present cost are if you combine your costs with your employers cost.

There ya go. Problem solved. Great idea Dano!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That is absolutely the point. other countries were not formed like ours was. disregarding that entire legal doctrine is the basis for talk of armed rebellion.

That is just complete idiotic ideological nonsense. Your implication is that it's impossible for the US to learn from other nations and adopt solutions which work for them because our history and constitution prohibits it? That's just laughable!

that right already exists in the free market enterprise. Just because you don't like the higher expense does not mean it can be annulled.

Like hell it can't. You're operating on a false premise son. Those health insurance companies never have operated within the free market but operate under a specific set of anti-trust exemptions.

I speak from experience. I have no insurance. I've gone to doctors for things that simple home remedies cannot fix. It's cost me between 40 and 150 dollars. this is way less expensive than ER visits. Don't even try to convince me of your BS argument.

I'm sorry but applying your anecdotal experience to the situation is niave as hell. Emergency rooms were never intended to be a primary portal to health care but all to often become so because people who do not have the means or are denied health coverage have to wait till a situation becomes a crises before they seek treatment and then the costs go up exponentially. If you go with out insurance long enough, that will happen to you eventually too.

I'm the one declaring insurance programs a scam to the public and you say I am the one brown nosing? you are a plain fool.

No, you are. You keep failing to realize that insurance companies are not like manufacturers or software companies. They are excluded from a number of anti-trust laws and do not operate as free market organizations. By opposing reform your supporting a continuation of their monopoly on our access to health care. That's just simply insane.

wrong. it's a proven principle of guaranteeing a profit to insurance companies. ask topspin if you dare. you are grossly ignorant of the entire issue. your strawman of authority is useless. I can see you can't comprehend even simple matters of economics.

Un huh and you don't understand this issue if you think that some imaginary belief that heath insurance companies are a free market entity. They are not. I also think your math ability is suspect. By requiring everyone to carry insurance, young, old, healthy, at risk and unhealthy you create a far greater economic pie to draw upon to manage costs. Why under our present system do you think so many insurance companies are under going a death spiral? Can you explain that?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That is a rather simplistic view of how Congress works. Aside from certain special circumstances, like impeaching a president, most bills are passed with a simple majority vote... HOWEVER... the issue is not the actual "up or down" vote on the bill... in order for it to move to the floor for a vote, it generally requires 2/3 of the house to vote for "cloture" and end the debate on the bill. This system allows the minority to have some level of political power and keeps us from being a democratic republic like China.

Dixie that's just a rule of the Senate and it's not a constitutional one. The Senate created that rule and the Senate can get rid of that rule and either case it would be completely constitutional. What angers most people about cloture/filibuster rules are that they allow a minority of Senators who may represent less than 20% of the population to impede legislation that benefit us all.