Too Bad

[babe]

This is a seriously weird thread. Probably 5 different conversations at one time, only moderately related. This thread should never be allowed to end, by congressional mandate. Would that be constitutional?

I don't care if it's constitutional or not. Fun is an inalienable right, and there's nothing more fun than making fun of legislators. . . . . and judges. . . . . or whoever is all bunched up over how to make us all be good.

 

[VINYLONE]

I bet all the regular staff didn't want it. I mean, if you have huge career plans ahead of you, you just don't want to get yourself into this one.

Ahhhh, makes sense. But then it shouldnt matter since it will ultimately go to the Supreme Court right?

I originally thought or agreed with after reading, that this was the route those that are against this legislation were going to take...

So, how long does it take to make it to the Supreme Court? Its on appeals now...right?

 

[babe]

Ahhhh, makes sense. But then it shouldnt matter since it will ultimately go to the Supreme Court right?

I originally thought or agreed with after reading, that this was the route those that are against this legislation were going to take...

So, how long does it take to make it to the Supreme Court? Its on appeals now...right?

My first guess is probably a fast track. But it is a political calculation with a great risk attached. Will America accept it as final if the Supreme Court gives it a quick ruling in favor of Obamacare, or will they then do another huge restaffing of the Senate and House and Presidency?

Maybe democracy can work, after all????

 

[PearlWatson]

Forcing people to buy products is catching on:

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

https://www.argusleader.com/article...1/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun

 

[babe]

Forcing people to buy products is catching on:

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

https://www.argusleader.com/article...1/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun

Looks like a gag to me. Those legislators know they won't have a thousand BigPharma/Rockefeller lobbyist flock workin' the legislators around to support it.

Along this line, why don't we have a Federal Education Initiative to require parents to buy a hundred pencils for elementary children, and a computer for every kid.

Say, how about a new draft law requiring folks filing joint tax returns to produce a child for the State, to be raised by the Gov and dedicated to Military Service ala Sparta.

How about a new law requiring body mass indices for everybody and maybe some kind of standard treatment for the obese????? oh, that was in Obamacare?????

Obama would probably be enthusiastic about requiring all homes to be retrofitted with GE-produced green energy windmills and solar panels. I bet GE would throw a few mil in the campaign coffer for his next run.

nah. sometimes our cures are worse than our diseases. No way do we really want our gov acting on every supposedly good cause by taking over our decisions and our care.

 

[sirkickyass]

Forcing people to buy products is catching on:

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

https://www.argusleader.com/article...1/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun

Psssh. They're 200 years late to the "you must buy a gun" party. Congress did that in 1792.

https://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States . . . shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia . . . .provid[ing] himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein . . . and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service.

This was on the books until the National Guard was established in 1903.

And that was a no joke purchase too. Check it out: https://www.healthreformwatch.com/2010/07/20/the-original-individual-mandate-circa-1792/

Further evidence modern conservatism is far to the right of the government envisioned by the consensus of the founding fathers that they so lionize (as opposed to Thomas Jefferson, who does not individually represent the entirety of thought during that period of time.)

 

[PearlWatson]

Further evidence modern conservatism is far to the right of the government envisioned by the consensus of the founding fathers that they so lionize (as opposed to Thomas Jefferson, who does not individually represent the entirety of thought during that period of time.)

Yeah, they are WAY right since they want to make everyone buy a gun in their state instead of just the "able bodied white dudes." I'll bet the natives are exempt though.

 

[PearlWatson]

Judge is mad @ being ignored by Obama:

"Judge Vinson Clarifies Florida Ruling, Maintains That Entire Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional -- In a harshly worded opinion, Judge Roger Vinson, the Florida federal judge who struck down the entire health care law in January, gave the [regime] seven days from today to appeal his ruling with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. ... In the [20-page] ruling Vinson is critical of Justice Department lawyers for waiting nearly two weeks before filing a 'motion to clarify.'

He reiterated his finding that the Congress exceeded its authority when it passed the individual mandate and said that because the mandate was unseverable from the rest of the Act the entire legislation was void. He said that his order applied to all parts of the law, including those provisions currently in effect.

He said he had expected the government lawyers to immediately seek a stay of the ruling.

“It was not expected” he wrote, “that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to “clarify.”

Legal experts say the chances are high that the appeals court will grant the administration’s motion to stay Vinson’s ruling pending appeal.

Vinson acknowledged the issue will ultimately end up before the Supreme Court and he said parties should move with haste. “The sooner this issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court, “ he wrote, “the better off the entire nation will be.”

https://blogs.abcnews.com/political...tire-health-care-law-is-unconstitutional.html

 

[babe]

Judge is mad @ being ignored by Obama:


https://blogs.abcnews.com/political...tire-health-care-law-is-unconstitutional.html

Vinson has done all he has power to do. The higher powers will just ignore him for as long as it takes for everybody to not care anymore. Obviously, Obama's strategists are not in a hurry to get to the Supreme Court, and they know that time is on their side, and they need to get one more favorable judge appointed to the Supreme Court. They think they can stil do it.

 

[VINYLONE]

Vinson has done all he has power to do. The higher powers will just ignore him for as long as it takes for everybody to not care anymore. Obviously, Obama's strategists are not in a hurry to get to the Supreme Court, and they know that time is on their side, and they need to get one more favorable judge appointed to the Supreme Court. They think they can stil do it.

Solid post. This is the way I take it as well... The judicial process, I would surmise, moves like a tanker...

 

[PearlWatson]

"If the government can do this, what else can it ... do?” Scalia asked.

https://www.latimes.com/news/politi...lth-insurance-mandate-20120327,0,423592.story

 

[Stoked]

"If the government can do this, what else can it ... do?” Scalia asked.

https://www.latimes.com/news/politi...lth-insurance-mandate-20120327,0,423592.story

I predict a 5-4 against the bill.

 

[TroutBum]

"Virtually everyone in society is in this market,” said Verrilli, who was prodded on by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and other liberal justices. That means that if someone elects not to get health insurance but then gets sick, as everyone will, that person will pass along costs to everyone else, Verrilli explained.

This. But whatever you morons want to do is fine by me. I'd like to know how this is any different than the government mandating that you have automobile insurance? Why doesn't anyone ever gripe about that?

 

[Gameface]

This. But whatever you morons want to do is fine by me. I'd like to know how this is any different than the government mandating that you have automobile insurance? Why doesn't anyone ever gripe about that?

I'm not going to make the broccoli argument, but we are all in the food market and for some reason we don't all pool our money to make sure everyone has food.

Health insurance and medical care are two different things.

Do your girls have an auto insurance policy? My 26 year old brother in law doesn't have auto insurance...because he doesn't drive. If he takes the action of getting a licence and getting a car he will be required to take the action of getting auto insurance. Until he acts he isn't required to do anything.

 

[franklin]

This. But whatever you morons want to do is fine by me. I'd like to know how this is any different than the government mandating that you have automobile insurance? Why doesn't anyone ever gripe about that?

Driving is not an inherent right but living is.
Driving puts the lives of others at risk. Living doesn't.

The government doesn't own us, we own it. A government that can force you to buy the wares of its best paying lobbyists owns you. A justice branch that declares this mandate constitutional is no longer a justice branch. Then again, the sitting tyrant liberal justices who believe they have the authority to look at international law for settling internal, constitutional matters have already turned the SCOTUS into half of a joke machine.

 

[candrew]

Driving is not an inherent right but living is.
Driving puts the lives of others at risk. Living doesn't.

The government doesn't own us, we own it. A government that can force you to buy the wares of its best paying lobbyists owns you. A justice branch that declares this mandate constitutional is no longer a justice branch. Then again, the sitting tyrant liberal justices who believe they have the authority to look at international law for settling internal, constitutional matters have already turned the SCOTUS into half of a joke machine.

You can choose not to drive. I've known people (especially in NYC) who went their entire lives without driving a car.

I guarantee you at several times in your life you will need health care - there is no choice involved. And on at least one or two of those occassions it will be very, very expensive. If you're not covered and you're broke someone will have to pay for it.

 

[franklin]

I guarantee you at several times in your life you will need health care - there is no choice involved. And on at least one or two of those occassions it will be very, very expensive. If you're not covered and you're broke someone will have to pay for it.

I never said there wasn't any benefit. There are always benefits and disadvantages to going the Marxist control route, same as every other governmental choice we make. Setting this precedent would have wide reaching implications down the road, not to mention the immediately adverse quality of life disadvantages to many, or the opportunity to politicize health decisions like has happened in Europe. Good luck being a senior citizen who would have been able to get that hip replacement under the current system but it's not authorized under the new politically manufactured coverage tables. "Someone will have to pay for it" suddenly becomes "no one will pay for it". The next year money gets tighter and so do those coverage tables. Let's Go Greece!

We could have learned our lessons from pushing the everyone deserves to own a home initiative to the point where no one could afford a home, things collapsed, and otherwise capable adults were no longer able to work and afford to purchase their own health insurance. Now we're looking the debt tipping point in the face while adding another $2 trillion mandate and praying everything rebounds at an acceptable rate with no external shocks to the system that are entirely unknown and out of our hands if they were. Not to mention how much it's pissing everyone off that we're still floating the banks China style. Another wealth transfer away from the common to the controlling class.

I hope everything works out, and it probably will, but we're setting up the next crisis right now. Then the government will have this new little tool known as a SCOTUS decision setting precedent to force us to purchase something, and that will allow a plethora of new "solutions" to this next crisis.

Now where's One Brow to call me a fear mongerer?

 

[GVC]

Good luck being a senior citizen who would have been able to get that hip replacement under the current system but it's not authorized under the new politically manufactured coverage tables.

Yep. The best way to run the system is to throw loads of money into replacement hips for those who won't be alive long enough to use them.

 

[franklin]

Yep. The best way to run the system is to throw loads of money into replacement hips for those who won't be alive long enough to use them.

But I thought it was all about providing coverage to those who cannot afford it themselves. You mean it's really about building and controlling a system? You don't say. Screw all these people making their own choices. Freedom sucks anyway.

 

[Gameface]

Yep. The best way to run the system is to throw loads of money into replacement hips for those who won't be alive long enough to use them.

This is an argument AGAINST the ACA, yes?