APP - obama health care law before scotus

if it should fail it would be a disaster for Obama's re-election.....he would go into November facing the loss of his biggest "fulfilled" campaign promise.....
 
if the law is upheld, the founders vision of america is completely dead. there is absolutely no frickin way that the 'restricted' central government they envisioned would have been able to mandate the purchase of anything. It was bad enough when they were allowed to prohibit the possession of anything without a constitutional amendment, but then again, democrats and republicans haven't cared about the constitution for over a century.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
if the law is upheld, the founders vision of america is completely dead. there is absolutely no frickin way that the 'restricted' central government they envisioned would have been able to mandate the purchase of anything. It was bad enough when they were allowed to prohibit the possession of anything without a constitutional amendment, but then again, democrats and republicans haven't cared about the constitution for over a century.
Click to expand...
Yea well you've never had to manage the health care needs of 30 million uninsured or the cost of providing for the needs of 40 million seniors, have you? Or should we just let the old and poor fuckers die? Do you have any better and workable options that would pass your high and mighty purity test?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, then he's stuck with the status quo.....which is still a lump of coal in everyone's stocking......
Click to expand...
...or a diamond. I hope it never happens to you PiMP but if a family member of yours is seriosly injured or develops a life threatening illness, you'll probably be singing a different tune when you can get competent medical care and not go bankrupt or watch them suffer or die cause you cannot afford adequate care or are denied access to care by your Insurance company.

I really don't understand why you reactionaries insist on stradling this nation with a backward, third world health management system? With our wealth and technology and educational system why do you oppose moderninzing our health care managements system? It defies logic and reason. I just don't get why you want to stay stuck in the 1950's?
 
Last edited:
Don Quixote said:
and if it withstands scotus he will have a diamond
Click to expand...
Probably not. With substantial aspects of PPACA I doubt anything SCOTUS could decide before the election would help Obama. I think that will affect Obama's legacy more than anything. SCOTUS can't undo all of PPACA. They can hit it hard one the universal mandate and rule that unconstitutional, which would certainly have an impact on cost management. Most of the other aspects of the law would require Congress to change the law. That would be pretty hard to do with out one party controlling the White House, The House and a 60 seat majority in the Senate, which is what Democrats had when they passed the law. That's unlikely to happen in the near future.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
if the law is upheld, the founders vision of america is completely dead. there is absolutely no frickin way that the 'restricted' central government they envisioned would have been able to mandate the purchase of anything. It was bad enough when they were allowed to prohibit the possession of anything without a constitutional amendment, but then again, democrats and republicans haven't cared about the constitution for over a century.
Click to expand...

"if the law is upheld, the founders vision of america is completely dead."

Quite the contrary. The Founders made it very clear what they hoped to achieve.

(Excerpt) The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (End) (Dic.com)

If the Founders were aware that a pill, costing 50 cents at today's prices, would increase the lifespan of certain citizens by decades do you think the Founders would have said, "To hell with that. Let them die"?

Furthermore, there is a difference between demanding one make a purchase they can not afford and demanding they make a purchase with the assistance of the government, if necessary. Whether "general welfare" applies to individuals or the country as a whole it is in the interest of both that citizens do not die unnecessarily.

The preamble, what the Founders hoped the Constitution would achieve, clearly states the government is to "promote" (to help or encourage to exist or flourish) the general welfare. Relieving pain and suffering. Preventing untimely deaths.

In order for one to say the government is overstepping its mandate they must interpret "promote" as "do nothing" or consider that sickness and death of citizens have no bearing on the general welfare of the citizens and/or the country.

Do you see any other possible reason?
 
Derp Derp said:
Yea well you've never had to manage the health care needs of 30 million uninsured or the cost of providing for the needs of 40 million seniors, have you? Or should we just let the old and poor fuckers die? Do you have any better and workable options that would pass your high and mighty purity test?
Click to expand...

1) that's irrelevant. the constitution was not written to make the government our nannies or parents.
2) that's irrelevant. the federal government has no constitutional power to manage anyones healthcare but their own.
3) that's irrelevant. I have parents and when they need it, i'll take care of their needs. that's how it should be for everyone else to, but selfish fuckers like you don't want to care for your own elderly family members, you want the government to do it.
 
apple0154 said:
"if the law is upheld, the founders vision of america is completely dead."

Quite the contrary. The Founders made it very clear what they hoped to achieve.

(Excerpt) The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (End) (Dic.com)

If the Founders were aware that a pill, costing 50 cents at today's prices, would increase the lifespan of certain citizens by decades do you think the Founders would have said, "To hell with that. Let them die"?

Furthermore, there is a difference between demanding one make a purchase they can not afford and demanding they make a purchase with the assistance of the government, if necessary. Whether "general welfare" applies to individuals or the country as a whole it is in the interest of both that citizens do not die unnecessarily.

The preamble, what the Founders hoped the Constitution would achieve, clearly states the government is to "promote" (to help or encourage to exist or flourish) the general welfare. Relieving pain and suffering. Preventing untimely deaths.

In order for one to say the government is overstepping its mandate they must interpret "promote" as "do nothing" or consider that sickness and death of citizens have no bearing on the general welfare of the citizens and/or the country.

Do you see any other possible reason?
Click to expand...

the preamble assigns no powers, the articles do. therefore, the preamble gives a general definition, not an ultimate definition.
pretty damned tired of your bullshit preamble thinking that the government can do anything with phenomenal cosmic powers when the founders wrote a constitution that LIMITS the federal power.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
1) that's irrelevant. the constitution was not written to make the government our nannies or parents.
2) that's irrelevant. the federal government has no constitutional power to manage anyones healthcare but their own.
3) that's irrelevant. I have parents and when they need it, i'll take care of their needs. that's how it should be for everyone else to, but selfish fuckers like you don't want to care for your own elderly family members, you want the government to do it.
Click to expand...

one way or another both need to be covered or we are a nation of the selfish
 
Derp Derp said:
I hope it never happens to you PiMP but if a family member of yours is seriosly injured or develops a life threatening illness, you'll probably be singing a different tune when you can get competent medical care and not go bankrupt or watch them suffer or die cause you cannot afford adequate care or are denied access to care by your Insurance company.

I really don't understand why you reactionaries insist on stradling this nation with a backward, third world health management system? With our wealth and technology and educational system why do you oppose moderninzing our health care managements system? It defies logic and reason. I just don't get why you want to stay stuck in the 1950's?
Click to expand...

I hope it doesn't happen to anyone.....but it puzzles me why some on the left think that the way to make sure those who didn't have insurance were protected was to fuck up the insurance that some people DID have....the goal was to add protection, not destroy it......

of course you have to remember that this is insurance brought to you by people who thought, in college, that the way to save the country was to burn it down......
 
Derp Derp said:
It will be interesting to see. I doubt that they can reject the whole law (or set of laws) but might reject significant parts of it. The most important of which would be the universal mandate.
Click to expand...

They can, actually. The law was written without the provisions usually used by the courts that they use to separate out bits to allow some to stand while other parts die.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the preamble assigns no powers, the articles do. therefore, the preamble gives a general definition, not an ultimate definition.
pretty damned tired of your bullshit preamble thinking that the government can do anything with phenomenal cosmic powers when the founders wrote a constitution that LIMITS the federal power.
Click to expand...


OK. Let's work on that comprehension problem, again. We'll start here.

"The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."

The courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions. Intentions: the end or object intended; purpose.

The courts have determined the preamble states the purpose of the Constitution. If one is going to follow the Constitution, interpret it, they have to know the purpose of it and the preamble tells us the purpose.

Next we go to:

"The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

The courts have determined the preamble does, indeed, tell us what the Founding Fathers wanted to achieve. They wanted to promote the general welfare so I ask, "Do you consider the needless suffering and premature death of citizens contribute to the general welfare of the citizens and/or the country?"

We're not talking about phenomenal cosmic powers unless you believe Norway and New Zealand and Japan and Germany and Belgium and the United Kingdom and Kuwait and Sweden and Bahrain and Brunei and Canada and the Netherlands and Austria and the United Arab Emirates and Finland and Slovenia and Denmark and Luxembourg and France and Australia and Ireland and Italy and Portugal and Cyprus and Greece and Spain and South Korea and Iceland and Hong Kong and Singapore and Switzerland and Israel ALL have phenomenal cosmic powers.

Talking about "pretty damned tired of your bullshit" it's clearly stated and the courts agree the preamble tells us what the Founding Fathers wanted to achieve and only a mentally deranged individual would consider promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty involve doing nothing while people needlessly suffer and die.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
.....but it puzzles me why some on the left think that the way to make sure those who didn't have insurance were protected was to fuck up the insurance that some people DID have....the goal was to add protection, not destroy it......
Click to expand...

It's the same reason there is Social Security. Why not get rid of SS and just help those who end up retiring in poverty? Well, we know how well that worked, don't we? That approach was taken for thousands of years. People had, literally, a couple of millennium to figure it out and they didn't. In the end the government had to get involved. It's the same thing with health care. From the invention of antibiotics to specialized medical procedures was there any plan or system in place to ensure the poor would be helped?

As for destroying other people's medical plans you'll note the citizens in every country with a government plan insist on keeping it. No exception.

Forget the lies the Repub's have told.
 
apple0154 said:
As for destroying other people's medical plans you'll note the citizens in every country with a government plan insist on keeping it. No exception.
Click to expand...

obviously, once you've destroyed the private system you can never rebuild it.....that's why this election is so important.....we need to void it before it goes into effect.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
pretty good idea, actually......needs testing would solve SS's problems handily......
Click to expand...

Sure, just like welfare where people are arbitrarily cut off. It's easy to change the qualifications required when means tests are used. There needs to be a guarantee. What can and should be done is the benefits taxed back from those whose income passes a certain level. That way everyone receives the compensation and it's later determined how much of it they get to keep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top