Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
amazing you don't understand the difference between a forced purchase of a product and regulation of an industry
Head to head debate
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
amazing you don't understand the difference between a forced purchase of a product and regulation of an industry
onceler isn't smart enough to understand the socratic method
Or, it's possible you're not smart enough to formulate your own opinions.
I also think we're doing an incredible disservice to the legacy of Socrates by calling what you do on here "Socratic" in any way.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
lol...i don't give or formulate my opinions, that hilarious, any more funny lies you want to dish out today?
and thanks for proving you don't understand what the socratic method is and i never claimed i ONLY and ALWAYS use that method....again, any more lies you want to tell today?
you're a boring little hack
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
that implies what i always do, not sometimes do, but clearly means what i do all the time
amazing you lack a basic understanding of english, no wonder you run around the board all the time crying out that people can't read, its actually you who lacks the skill to understand what is actually being said
lol
Pretty extreme reading of what I wrote - you really can't read. It's a shame.
I wonder why that is? Is it something you have ever checked into? There might be medications or something else which could really help....
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
So did Bfgrn ever respond to the original question?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
dunno
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
it's like the fight in the schoolyard, everyone crowds in close shouting "fight, fight!" and those of us in back can't even see the participants.....
cancel2 2022
Canceled
This article pretty much sums it all up very succinctly, in my view. Here is an excerpt addressing the constitutional issues.
There have been some rumblings about this bill being unconstitutional. It isn't. Though it is a clever reinvention of what the Founders had in mind, the same can be said of our entire status quo. For they never envisioned an income tax or national parks system, either, or Medicare or Social Security or FEMA, or even, gasp, a standing army. So until constitutional purists call for the dismantling of the U.S. Army (oh, and of course, the Air Force) and the tearing up of the interstate highway system, Constitutional purity is just a lame argument against anything else.
The Constitution grants Congress power to regulate interstate trade (and to spend money in support of the "general welfare of the United States"), and all health care insurance companies engage in interstate trade (and health care regulation, like food and vehicle safety, is definitely in the interests of our "general welfare," even more so due to the severe harm health care costs are causing our economic security). Technically the Feds couldn't regulate a health insurance company that only ever sells policies within a single state, but since no one can make any money that way, it's a non issue. If such a company exists it could take their case to court (which has a mixed record of supporting even well-established states' rights), but since they are unlikely to be able to compete without becoming a part of the Federal system (e.g. to get customers who have subsidy credits to spend, to participate in the hugely cost-cutting Federal universal administration system and policy exchange, etc.), I doubt we'll see this happen.
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2009/12/obamacare.html
There have been some rumblings about this bill being unconstitutional. It isn't. Though it is a clever reinvention of what the Founders had in mind, the same can be said of our entire status quo. For they never envisioned an income tax or national parks system, either, or Medicare or Social Security or FEMA, or even, gasp, a standing army. So until constitutional purists call for the dismantling of the U.S. Army (oh, and of course, the Air Force) and the tearing up of the interstate highway system, Constitutional purity is just a lame argument against anything else.
The Constitution grants Congress power to regulate interstate trade (and to spend money in support of the "general welfare of the United States"), and all health care insurance companies engage in interstate trade (and health care regulation, like food and vehicle safety, is definitely in the interests of our "general welfare," even more so due to the severe harm health care costs are causing our economic security). Technically the Feds couldn't regulate a health insurance company that only ever sells policies within a single state, but since no one can make any money that way, it's a non issue. If such a company exists it could take their case to court (which has a mixed record of supporting even well-established states' rights), but since they are unlikely to be able to compete without becoming a part of the Federal system (e.g. to get customers who have subsidy credits to spend, to participate in the hugely cost-cutting Federal universal administration system and policy exchange, etc.), I doubt we'll see this happen.
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2009/12/obamacare.html
Bfgrn
New member
This has been a Head to..............................
Yurt has been hiding under his bed since last night...so far not a peep from Yurt on the topic.
I bet his mommy finally chased him out from under the bed with the vacuum cleaner. Getting him to come out from under the house will require the garden hose.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I think he said he has to go wash his briefs.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
that does not support the constitutionality of forcing you to buy something, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about, you think regulation of an industry is the same thing a forcing you to buy something
get a grip
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
hiding? ZOMG, so if someone isn't on the board, their hiding? good fuckign lord, i don't live on here and i sleep...ZOMG, i'm hiding
did you finally reply with your opinion? if so, link it and i'll respond, i thought the debate was over given everybody else's posts
FuzzyBunny
Verified User
Someone also need to mention there is a Giant chasm between "regulating" an industry, "Administering" an industry.
Please can we quit using "General Welfare" as if it was some Founding Fathers all powerful clause. It first legal use was in 1937 where the "general Welfare Clause" was created to justify unconstitutional expansion of government in the FDR Court Packing Scandal
Just in case you're thinking Madison is being unclear:
Please can we quit using "General Welfare" as if it was some Founding Fathers all powerful clause. It first legal use was in 1937 where the "general Welfare Clause" was created to justify unconstitutional expansion of government in the FDR Court Packing Scandal
The founders clearly did not want the General Welfare to be an open-ended power source and wanted Government constrained and limited. Seems Jefferson agreed
Just in case you're thinking Madison is being unclear:
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Where's your response? I've read most of the thread and all I can find from you is:
1. An article written by someone else;
2. You avoiding the issue and calling Yurt names and stuff.
hotdog
Victory Shall Be Mine
Maybe Yurt deserves to be insulted he keeps insulting me all the time.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
ghey
Bfgrn
New member
I have given many opinions. Go find them yourself, I'm not your mommy.
We are still waiting for something of substance from you Yurt. So far all you've done is sit in the peanut gallery and throw peanuts and whine.
hotdog
Victory Shall Be Mine
Do you deny that you insult me?