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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Way Off Topic Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Baaahb



Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 15750
Location: Ponderosa

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Republicans are not a conservative party any more. They are a reactionary party. Their opinions come and go as fast as you can change a diaper.

It's really hard to judge what the electorate will support, considering that a very substantial percentage have been led through soundbites and populism into supporting positions that are directly contrary to their economic self-interest, (which they generally indicate as the issue of primary concern to them.)
_________________
Other vegetables have a hard time competing with potatoes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VTnCO



Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 648
Location: Republic of Boulder

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't get how the individual mandate is so unconstitutional considering the other mandatory items we have. I can't opt out of paying into Social Security - which I could care less about in relation to a proper health care system. I don't get to select to not contribute to paying for the uninsured when I pay my health bills.

I actually think that if the SCOTUS overturns the individual mandate, it will seal Obama's re-election. Enough independents will see what it was doing/going to do and convince them the GOP is not looking out for them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mark



Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 2819

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jesus H Kreest. The inflammatory BS is just thick and deep, and without some intelligent thoughtful discussion of our differences, f(^' it, might as well bust out the guns and start shooting.

IMHO, the mandate will be struck down by virtue that it requires the public to buy a 'private' insurance product which is fundamentally different than funding for public schools/compulsory education, roads, etc.... Other provisions will stand. In the end, it will revert to a states rights issue. Within a decade, groups of states will block together and invest in regional single payer systems that reflect the values and the needs of their constituents. The PNW will have a very different system than the southeast. That's fine with me. I no longer believe that we have enough common values and shared cultural interests to maintain the current union. A constitutional amendment to allow the peaceful dissolution of the union? I'm all for it. In the meantime, I'd like one that says that no state can receive more federal money than they pay. In the end, the sad thing is, we're imploding by choice, not necessity. OK. All done. Small 'r'-ant's over. Flame away.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baaahb



Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 15750
Location: Ponderosa

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

in many areas one must buy city services, such as city water, city sewer, city garbage service...and some of these services are provide by private contractors....
_________________
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: Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baaahb wrote:
in many areas one must buy city services, such as city water, city sewer, city garbage service...and some of these services are provide by private contractors....


Got 10th Amendment?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NoOneInParticular



Joined: 09 Feb 2005
Posts: 3607
Location: VT

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the 10th amendment seems to swing in and out of fashion depending on the political makeup of the court. not that I hold myself out as an expert.

the media portrayed the more moderate Republican appointees as rather negative about the mandatory opt in.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevesliva



Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 10142
Location: SEA

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

slamdance wrote:
Got 10th Amendment?


Is that the basis of your argument that the court will strike Obamacare down?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slamdance



Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 834

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevesliva wrote:
slamdance wrote:
Got 10th Amendment?


Is that the basis of your argument that the court will strike Obamacare down?

Yes. No. Oh Slobberface, you've got me soooo confused!! Laughing Laughing

Is this the best schtick you can come up with?

I think it's hilarious that I bug you so much.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevesliva



Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 10142
Location: SEA

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just the 10th amendment? Really?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NoOneInParticular



Joined: 09 Feb 2005
Posts: 3607
Location: VT

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevesliva wrote:
Just the 10th amendment? Really?


Isn't that what the debate is about? The mandatory participation and the increase in Medicaide - in other words - you go along with the increased participation that the feds mostly pay for, or you get nothing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slamdance



Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 834

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NoOneInParticular wrote:
the 10th amendment seems to swing in and out of fashion depending on the political makeup of the court. not that I hold myself out as an expert.

Perhaps but this isn't a "States' rights" issue. I was just making the rather mundane and completely uncontroversial observation that States (and their municipalities) can do things the federal government can not.

NoOneInParticular wrote:
the media portrayed the more moderate Republican appointees as rather negative about the mandatory opt in.


Any jurist with a more conservative interpretation of the Constitution would see this as a rather unprecedented excercise of federal power under the Commerce Clause. Where that puts them in the end is still uncertain - at least to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slamdance



Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 834

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevesliva wrote:
Just the 10th amendment? Really?


Laughing Laughing You're so fucking stupid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slamdance



Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 834

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NoOneInParticular wrote:
Isn't that what the debate is about?


No, it's not a 10th amendment issue at all. It has to do with Congress' power under the Commerce Clause (its power to regulate interstate commerce).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevesliva



Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 10142
Location: SEA

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

slamdance wrote:
Any jurist with a more conservative interpretation of the Constitution would see this as a rather unprecedented excercise of federal power under the Commerce Clause.


WOW!!!! That's such an amazing bit of scholarship!! Please continue your uniquely brilliant insights. Pretty soon you'll be predicting justice Thomas won't ask any questions. Mind blowing!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slamdance



Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 834

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve - it's boring now. When you get no further replies - you'll know it's me.
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 3 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!