Head to head debate

Yurt said:
irrelevant to the issue of whether the government can FORCE you to purchase something. since your new slant is, well, the government can force you to purchase something because you can't live without it....can the government force you to buy a car? to buy food? afterall, you can't live without them. maybe a car, but food? can the government force you to buy food?
Click to expand...

You can live without a car, and food is a staple that your body tells you it needs. You seek out food instinctively. People will beg and even forage through dumpsters for scraps. My dad saw people eat maggots in the Philippines during WWII.

NO ONE seeks out getting hit by a car, having a heart attack or sticks a knife in their body to rupture their appendix. You enter heath care commerce INvoluntarily.

AND, if you don't have insurance and you are hit by a car, have a heart attack or your appendix ruptures, you WILL BE TREATED, and there WILL BE A BILL. If you can't pay it or refuse to pay it, you are FORCING ME TO PAY for your personal irresponsibility. YOU are a health care welfare queen...
 
Yurt said:
i wonder if bfgrn will ever actually provide support for his contention that it is constitutional to have the government force you to buy something...so far...all he has done is whine about the topic because i picked it...well, you said any topic

man up
Click to expand...
Apparently not. All he can do is provide unrelated arguments...
 
Bfgrn said:
You can live without a car, and food is a staple that your body tells you it needs. You seek out food instinctively. People will beg and even forage through dumpsters for scraps. My dad saw people eat maggots in the Philippines during WWII.

NO ONE seeks out getting hit by a car, having a heart attack or sticks a knife in their body to rupture their appendix. You enter heath care commerce INvoluntarily.

AND, if you don't have insurance and you are hit by a car, have a heart attack or your appendix ruptures, you WILL BE TREATED, and there WILL BE A BILL. If you can't pay it or refuse to pay it, you are FORCING ME TO PAY for your personal irresponsibility. YOU are a health care welfare queen...
Click to expand...

babble...and nothing at all to do with showing how forcing me to buy h/c is constitutional. you're too angry and wound up. calm down and explain under what constitutional principles can the government force you to buy something. real simple.
 
Yurt said:
irrelevant to the issue of whether the government can FORCE you to purchase something. since your new slant is, well, the government can force you to purchase something because you can't live without it....can the government force you to buy a car? to buy food? afterall, you can't live without them. maybe a car, but food? can the government force you to buy food?
Click to expand...

One angle I can see the government using is the Necessary and proper clause found in McCulloch_v._Maryland. http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland According to valid Supreme Court precedent, McCullough v. Maryland, the Necessary and Proper Clause allows the government to pass laws that do not fall within the expressed powers so long as they are necessary and proper in order to execute the expressed powers. The Federal Government has the Constitutional authority to regulate the health insurance industry and, therefore, the authority to protect citizens, via regulation, from the discriminatory practice of denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. In order to deal with the very real issue of people, then, only purchasing insurance when they are sick, the mandate is put in place... this is a rational means to assist in achieving a legitimate end. The fact that the Federal Government does not have the expressed power to require an individual to engage in a commercial transaction with a private company is not the point. It does have the authority, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, to do so in order to execute it's legitimate protection of individuals from discriminatory practices by insurance companies.
 
Last edited:
Southern Chicken said:
One angle I can see the government using is the Necessary and proper clause found in McCulloch_v._Maryland. http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland According to valid Supreme Court precedent, McCullough v. Maryland, the Necessary and Proper Clause allows the government to pass laws that do not fall within the expressed powers so long as they are necessary and proper in order to execute the expressed powers. The Federal Government has the Constitutional authority to regulate the health insurance industry and, therefore, the authority to protect citizens, via regulation, from the discriminatory practice of denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. In order to deal with the very real issue of people, then, only purchasing insurance when they are sick, the mandate is put in place... this is a rational means to assist in achieving a legitimate end. The fact that the Federal Government does not have the expressed power to require an individual to engage in a commercial transaction with a private company is not the point. It does have the authority, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, to do so in order to execute it's legitimate protection of individuals from discriminatory practices by insurance companies.
Click to expand...

legion finally makes a decent debate. forcing you to buy insurance does not protect you from so called discriminatory practices of the insurance industry. if the government creates a law mandating that insurance companies cannot deny you coverage for preexisting claims, that would likely be upheld. then everyone's rates would go up. yay, so because you have a preexisting condition, i'm going to pay for it.

the necessary and proper clause is not unlimited and should not be extended here. whats next, allowing the government to force you to purchase X amount of vegetables because it has a legitimate interest in keeping its citizens healthy, thereby reducing health costs. or should the government have the power to force you to buy gym membership because it has a legitimate interest in the health of it's citizens? i don't think even you would want to give the government that power.
 
Yurt said:
legion finally makes a decent debate. forcing you to buy insurance does not protect you from so called discriminatory practices of the insurance industry. if the government creates a law mandating that insurance companies cannot deny you coverage for preexisting claims, that would likely be upheld. then everyone's rates would go up. yay, so because you have a preexisting condition, i'm going to pay for it.

the necessary and proper clause is not unlimited and should not be extended here. whats next, allowing the government to force you to purchase X amount of vegetables because it has a legitimate interest in keeping its citizens healthy, thereby reducing health costs. or should the government have the power to force you to buy gym membership because it has a legitimate interest in the health of it's citizens? i don't think even you would want to give the government that power.
Click to expand...

No Yurt, the government is going to make you buy spandex, and stuff it up your ass...LOL You folks on the right always need to use the polarized argument and the slippery slope. Just like Judge Vinson's absurd ruling, you folks need to wear a foil hat.

Southern Chicken made the best argument yet. It is supported by tom prendergast's post and my earlier post.

Also Gonzales v. Raich

Among those who have joined in rejecting the century-old, long-defunct decisions on which Judge Roger Vinson's decision rests, are Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Chief Justice Roberts. They will have to twist their prior decisions and statements into pretzels in order to rule the individual mandate or other ACA provisions unconstitutional.

Specifically:

In his concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), Justice Scalia spelled out in exquisite detail how the necessary and proper clause gives Congress power to do whatever is necessary to make a broader statutory scheme work - whether or not the specific means employed would be, standing alone, valid under the commerce clause. In that opinion he wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even . . . activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scalia approvingly quoted Chief Justice Rehnquist in the Lopez decision that limited commerce clause authority: "Though the conduct in Lopez was not economic, the Court [Rehnquist] nevertheless recognized that it could be regulated as ‘an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme would be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated."

This is a precise characterization of the role of the individual mandate in relation to the insurance reforms in the ACA.

Scalia wrote that under the necessary and proper clause, the government "possesses every power needed to make [its solution to a national economic problem] effective."

Again, one could not ask for a more precise picture of the mandate.
 
UOTE=Bfgrn;771657]No Yurt, the government is going to make you buy spandex, and stuff it up your ass...LOL You folks on the right always need to use the polarized argument and the slippery slope. Just like Judge Vinson's absurd ruling, you folks need to wear a foil hat.

Southern Chicken made the best argument yet. It is supported by tom prendergast's post and my earlier post.
Click to expand...

nice how you completely ignore taking the necessary and proper clause to its logical conclusing byforcing you to buy certain foods or buy a gym membership. why do you run away from that? i destroyed legion's argument and tom's earlier post was completely wrong, which i already showed. you're just ignorant.

Also Gonzales v. Raich

Among those who have joined in rejecting the century-old, long-defunct decisions on which Judge Roger Vinson's decision rests, are Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Chief Justice Roberts. They will have to twist their prior decisions and statements into pretzels in order to rule the individual mandate or other ACA provisions unconstitutional.

Specifically:

In his concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), Justice Scalia spelled out in exquisite detail how the necessary and proper clause gives Congress power to do whatever is necessary to make a broader statutory scheme work - whether or not the specific means employed would be, standing alone, valid under the commerce clause. In that opinion he wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even . . . activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scalia approvingly quoted Chief Justice Rehnquist in the Lopez decision that limited commerce clause authority: "Though the conduct in Lopez was not economic, the Court [Rehnquist] nevertheless recognized that it could be regulated as ‘an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme would be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated."

This is a precise characterization of the role of the individual mandate in relation to the insurance reforms in the ACA.

Scalia wrote that under the necessary and proper clause, the government "possesses every power needed to make [its solution to a national economic problem] effective."

Again, one could not ask for a more precise picture of the mandate.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

there is NO economic activity here. the option to NOT buy a service or product is NOT economic activity. not placing yourself into the stream of commerce cannot be called "activity".....in your world, the choice to not buy something is economic activity....well....the auto market is not doing so well because people aren't buying enough cars, so now the government can force you to buy a car because you economic INactivity effects economic activity.....insane logic....once again, you get it wrong.
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Originally Posted by apple0154
Promote the general welfare?
(Bravo) Promoting an idea IS NOT mandating an idea...
Click to expand...

It can be.

If the government is responsible for ensuring drinking water and food is safe to consume in order to prevent illness/death why would it not be responsible for health care in order to prevent illness/death?
(Bravo) The government does not mandate you eat good food or drink pure water or go to jail if you don't....
Click to expand...

The government ensures safe food and water are available. It can ensure medical services are available.

Surely it's reasonable to interpret "promote the general Welfare" to include the government doing what it can to prevent the unnecessary illness and death of citizens.
(Bravo) The government can't arrest you or fine you for getting sick, or dying ..your post is so stupid my response even sounds stupid....
Click to expand...

Your response certainly does sound stupid. The government can and does do things to prevent needless illness such as ensuring food is safe. If someone wants to leave food out, let it spoil, then eat it obviously the government can not do anything about that.
 
lol...troll9 deletes his retarded post after finally realizing how shameful and retarded said post was and he is too much of an idiot to realize its still contained in my reply

:)
 
LOL.

Yurtsie misidentifies numerous posters as trolls and is too stupid to know that he is unable to debate.

Do you know what the provisions of health care reform are, Yurtsie?
 
Yurtard crows:

Yurt said:
if the government creates a law mandating that insurance companies cannot deny you coverage for preexisting claims, that would likely be upheld
Click to expand...

Apparently Yurtard is not aware that health care reform will eventually prohibit denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Or perhaps he doesn't know the difference between a claim and a condition.

Here's a book for you, Yurtard.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_m2YfB6UA6...ADo/f0RKkt_yeJ0/s320/Debating+For+Dummies.jpg
 
weird, the retard deletes his earlier post about this and then with no shame repeats his retarded post

my point was about a SEPERATE law that ONLY regulated the insurance industry, not a law that both regulated it and forced you to purchase insurance.

but apparently, you're too fucking stupid to understand simple english.
 
Yurt said:
legion finally makes a decent debate. forcing you to buy insurance does not protect you from so called discriminatory practices of the insurance industry. if the government creates a law mandating that insurance companies cannot deny you coverage for preexisting claims, that would likely be upheld. then everyone's rates would go up. yay, so because you have a preexisting condition, i'm going to pay for it.

the necessary and proper clause is not unlimited and should not be extended here. whats next, allowing the government to force you to purchase X amount of vegetables because it has a legitimate interest in keeping its citizens healthy, thereby reducing health costs. or should the government have the power to force you to buy gym membership because it has a legitimate interest in the health of it's citizens? i don't think even you would want to give the government that power.
Click to expand...

I dont quite know who youre calling legion but I am Southern Chicken(been registered as Southern Chicken for some time now):confused:....As I stated above I see this as an angle for the Government's argument. As far as your "force you to buy counter".......Why not? What part of the constitution prohibits it? Note, I'm not asking if it's an enumerated power - it isn't, in my opinion, but I'm asking what in the constitution prohibits it? For instance, the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from passing a law infringing upon freedom of speech. Yes, all powers not enumerated are reserved to the States and the people respectively, but I don't think you could argue that the 10th Amendment was intended to invalidate the Necessary and Proper Clause which does allow the government to enact laws that go beyond the enumerated powers in certain circumstances. However, Congress can't use the Necessary and Proper Clause to do something that is prohibited by the Constitution. So, I ask you again... where does it prohibit this?

States require drivers to enter into a contract for auto insurance even if they are unwilling. If the Necessary and Proper Clause allows the government - in the limited manner that the Clause allows - to do things that the States might otherwise be able to do - and I see no reason why that shouldn't be the case, then if the States can require that a citizen be an unwilling participant to a contract, why can't the Federal government do so in this instance?
 
Yurt said:
nice how you completely ignore taking the necessary and proper clause to its logical conclusing byforcing you to buy certain foods or buy a gym membership. why do you run away from that? i destroyed legion's argument and tom's earlier post was completely wrong, which i already showed. you're just ignorant.
Click to expand...

there is NO economic activity here. the option to NOT buy a service or product is NOT economic activity. not placing yourself into the stream of commerce cannot be called "activity".....in your world, the choice to not buy something is economic activity....well....the auto market is not doing so well because people aren't buying enough cars, so now the government can force you to buy a car because you economic INactivity effects economic activity.....insane logic....once again, you get it wrong.[/QUOTE]

Oh no, you tried to read without mommy being there...

WHAT don't you understand about these pasasges?

Justice Scalia spelled out in exquisite detail how the necessary and proper clause gives Congress power to do whatever is necessary to make a broader statutory scheme work - whether or not the specific means employed would be, standing alone, valid under the commerce clause. In that opinion he wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even . . . activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scalia approvingly quoted Chief Justice Rehnquist in the Lopez decision that limited commerce clause authority: "Though the conduct in Lopez was not economic, the Court [Rehnquist] nevertheless recognized that it could be regulated as ‘an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme would be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated."

In regards to your absurd right wing paranoia, you can fashion a foil hat out of aluminum foil...or spandex...LOL!!!
 
Yurt said:
nice how you completely ignore taking the necessary and proper clause to its logical conclusing byforcing you to buy certain foods or buy a gym membership. why do you run away from that? i destroyed legion's argument and tom's earlier post was completely wrong, which i already showed. you're just ignorant.
Click to expand...

So Yurt, what prohibits the Federal Government from creating this mandate in furtherance of the legitimate ends under the Commerce Clause?


Keeping in mind that the Necessary and Proper Clause allows the Federal Government to enact laws that go beyond the enumerated powers if it is essential to achieving a legitimate end.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top