Forum Index

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Supreme court hears HCR arguement....
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Way Off Topic Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
miked



Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Posts: 865
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:42 pm    Post subject: Supreme court hears HCR arguement.... Reply with quote
This case has big implications beyond health care:

If the court struck down Mr. Obama's law, said Mr. Tribe, it would implicate "virtually every major piece of federal legislation enacted over the past several decades, and many laws now in the pipeline"—including proposals favored by conservatives.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577305362846327828.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Of course those free riders, that force hard working individuals like me to pay for their health care are shaking in their boots at the thought that they would have to be responsible for themselves, ironic isn't it:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0326/Individual-mandate-in-Obama-s-health-care-law-good-for-freedom-bad-for-free-riders/%28page%29/2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baaahb



Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 15772
Location: Ponderosa
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:10 am    Post subject: Re: Supreme court hears HCR arguement.... Reply with quote
miked wrote:
This case has big implications beyond health care:

If the court struck down Mr. Obama's law, said Mr. Tribe, it would implicate "virtually every major piece of federal legislation enacted over the past several decades, and many laws now in the pipeline"—including proposals favored by conservatives.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577305362846327828.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Of course those free riders, that force hard working individuals like me to pay for their health care are shaking in their boots at the thought that they would have to be responsible for themselves, ironic isn't it:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0326/Individual-mandate-in-Obama-s-health-care-law-good-for-freedom-bad-for-free-riders/%28page%29/2


the free rider problem is one of the reasons we need socialized health care. most free riders are indigent poor and I don't think they give a damn about the law
_________________
Other vegetables have a hard time competing with potatoes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slamdance



Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 834
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:01 am    Post subject: Re: Supreme court hears HCR arguement.... Reply with quote
Booooohb wrote:
most free riders are indigent poor and I don't think they give a damn about the law


Really? I thought most free riders were those evil bankers and corporate dudes, stuffing their own pockets while standing on the backs of the poor and the middle class. Following along with left wing ideology is so confusing. Some might even be tempted to think that you make whatever argument is convenient at the moment.

Get your story straight, Booohb. You are one fuckin' stupid SOB.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
miked



Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Posts: 865
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, apparently the individual mandate is not going to be an easy sell to the SCOTUS: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/03/26/149417437/high-court-justices-appear-split-on-insurance-mandate

Maybe health insurance for those with pre-existing conditions is not in the cards for americans. Perhaps those with pre-existing conditions could be encouraged to just "go home and die" instead of showing up in emergency rooms where the rest of us will have to pay for them. Perhaps the conservatives that run the country and its courts could at least make physician assisted suicide legal and free?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slamdance



Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 834
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Or perhaps you could go to law school and learn the difference between an argument based on actual constitutional law and precedent and one simply based upon a pathetic appeal to emotion? Just a thought. And bring Boooohb along - he's never been.

When and if this thing gets struck down, I can't WAIT to hear the little pigs squealing in this place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cowboy Neil



Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 802
Location: at the wheel
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
miked wrote:
Maybe health insurance for those with pre-existing conditions is not in the cards for americans.


...And here I thought the supreme court case was about the federal mandate compelling the population to purchase a service or face a penalty.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevesliva



Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 10286
Location: SEA
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cowboy Neil wrote:
miked wrote:
Maybe health insurance for those with pre-existing conditions is not in the cards for americans.


...And here I thought the supreme court case was about the federal mandate compelling the population to purchase a service or face a penalty.


And Dred Scott was just about property rights.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
miked



Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Posts: 865
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cowboy Neil wrote:
miked wrote:
Maybe health insurance for those with pre-existing conditions is not in the cards for americans.


...And here I thought the supreme court case was about the federal mandate compelling the population to purchase a service or face a penalty.


The only way the insurance companies will provide health insurance to those with pre existing conditions is if there is a mandate. Otherwise you or I would just not purchase insurance until we have a health problem.

The law is the law. If the mandate is unconstitutional so be it. There is no other way for those with pre-existing conditions to obtain health insurance. Hence my suggestion that they commit suicide.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevesliva



Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 10286
Location: SEA
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
slamdance wrote:
Or perhaps you could go to law school...


Aww, willy's appealing to authority. How touching. I'm sure those constitutional law classes get a lot of use chasing ambulances around plattsburgh.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slamdance



Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 834
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevesliva wrote:
slamdance wrote:
Or perhaps you could go to law school...


Aww, willy's appealing to authority. How touching. I'm sure those constitutional law classes get a lot of use chasing ambulances around plattsburgh.


What? That doesn't make any sense - on so many levels.

And what does Dred Scott have to do with anything, SlobberBoy? Or is that just more emotional squealing?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baaahb



Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 15772
Location: Ponderosa
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm a bit on the fence as to whether it gets struck down. If it is struck down, Obama will have a mandate to do it right, full socialized medicine.
_________________
Other vegetables have a hard time competing with potatoes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slamdance



Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 834
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Booohb wrote:
I'm a bit on the fence as to whether it gets struck down. If it is struck down, Obama will have a mandate to do it right, full socialized medicine.


I knew that was coming and I was pretty sure it would be Booohb driving the delivery van.

Please explain the "mandate", Booohby. And then explain how, if Obama's premier piece of domestic legislation is shot down as unconstitutional, you're so certain he'll be around to exercise it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevesliva



Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 10286
Location: SEA
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
slamdance wrote:
stevesliva wrote:
slamdance wrote:
Or perhaps you could go to law school...


Aww, willy's appealing to authority. How touching. I'm sure those constitutional law classes get a lot of use chasing ambulances around plattsburgh.


What? That doesn't make any sense - on so many levels.

And what does Dred Scott have to do with anything, SlobberBoy? Or is that just more emotional squealing?


Try to keep up, windsock. How much time should I really waste trying to spell things out for you, anyways?

It's moot-- you've clearly made up your mind on this. You'll wait for the decision to be handed down, and then you'll declare that you agree. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slamdance



Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 834
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Slobberface wrote:
Try to keep up, windsock. How much time should I really waste trying to spell things out for you, anyways?

In other words you can't explain it because it's a bunch of nonsense. Gotcha.

Slobberface wrote:
It's moot anyways-- you've clearly made up your mind on this. You'll wait for the decision to be handed down, and then you'll declare that you agree. Laughing


No I won't. And you can't find a single example of me ever doing anything like that in the past. Prove me wrong, SlobberBoy. I'll wait right here. Send SteveK, the OT errand boy cum hatchet man. If he can't come up with an example of it, nobody can. And get that filthy dildo out of your mouth - it's unseemly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevesliva



Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 10286
Location: SEA
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
windsock wrote:
stevesliva wrote:
It's moot anyways-- you've clearly made up your mind on this. You'll wait for the decision to be handed down, and then you'll declare that you agree. Laughing


No I won't.


Oh, okay. Suuuuure. What are your thoughts on this? What should happen? What did you learn at Tijuana law?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Way Off Topic Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 1 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




 

Dr. Telemark (reviews, etc.) | Forum Guidelines | Search | Legal/Terms of Use

All of the comments above are owned by the poster, telemarktips.com is not responsible in any way for the content. The views expressed by the posters are not necessarily those of Tt.com, its management or owners. Ski safe, be happy, rip it up, smile on your brother and sister!