Thread: Constitutionality of Obamacare

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

The refusing party gets politely punched in the teeth

And is then forced to get implants.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Here is a thought though Jimmy, think about where you would be Financially, if you did not have to pay all the taxes and SSI and "Medi" taxes your whole working life.. If you would have had that money to invest in even just an IRA???? Would you be better off ???? Any of the rest of you want to answer???

I know I keep going back to the same spot of MONEY, but hey I am one of those people who is getting nothing here, except the bill...and it is time for somebody else to step up and say I got the tab..

Getting nothing? Do you consider the school you went to nothing, even if all you learned was how to read, write and add up the cost of your shaving supplies? How about the roads you drive on even if the ones around you (which are probably maintained locally and not by the Federal Government) are substandard? You can still travel far more conveniently from California to New Hampshire because of the US highways. Don't use Medicaid, Medicare or SSI? Can you be sure you'll never need them? Which brings us back to the topic of insurance. This is probably the only service we use that we pay thousands of dollars to, hoping we'll never have to use it. After all, who wants to break their leg or be diagnosed with cancer? But when this happens, you're glad you kept making your payments. If you have life or health insurance or car and auto insurance, you're still paying for someone else's claims. And making the insurance companies fat in the process. And maybe you've never used a Pell grant or other govenment aid to education. But I'll bet some of the doctors who've treated you have, as well as the teachers who educated you, the engineers who developed the technology you use and even members of the Congress who pass fair labor laws to see that you haven't gotten too badly exploited since you were 16.

Originally Posted by leadduck

Getting nothing? Do you consider the school you went to nothing, even if all you learned was how to read, write and add up the cost of your shaving supplies? How about the roads you drive on even if the ones around you (which are probably maintained locally and not by the Federal Government) are substandard? You can still travel far more conveniently from California to New Hampshire because of the US highways. Don't use Medicaid, Medicare or SSI? Can you be sure you'll never need them? Which brings us back to the topic of insurance. This is probably the only service we use that we pay thousands of dollars to, hoping we'll never have to use it. After all, who wants to break their leg or be diagnosed with cancer? But when this happens, you're glad you kept making your payments. If you have life or health insurance or car and auto insurance, you're still paying for someone else's claims. And making the insurance companies fat in the process. And maybe you've never used a Pell grant or other govenment aid to education. But I'll bet some of the doctors who've treated you have, as well as the teachers who educated you, the engineers who developed the technology you use and even members of the Congress who pass fair labor laws to see that you haven't gotten too badly exploited since you were 16.

Not agreeing nor disagreeing with your answers to my quote of what I said, but I will say you took it totally out of context.....

It seems to me that many Americans have either forgotten the true purpose of our government, never understood it, or just outright reject it.

Maybe the third case, rejection, is just a pathological combination of the first two?

I don't know

Originally Posted by honedright

It seems to me that many Americans have either forgotten the true purpose of our government, never understood it, or just outright reject it.

Maybe the third case, rejection, is just a pathological combination of the first two?

I don't know

.......Yep!

Originally Posted by honedright

Note the different wording - provide for common defense, promote the general welfare.

Different wording, different meanings. The writers were very specific.

Also - "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

The statement directly above is incompatible with a national health care system. Unless you, or anyone, somehow believes that putting a gun to our heads and forcing participation in, and forcing funding for, the system, especially for citizens who neither need or want national health care, is somehow, in some perverted way, a "blessing of liberty."

This points out the problem with interpretation. If the wording is explicit it will still be interpreted in a way that makes it favorable to whatever position the individual or group wishes.

I call it the, "Oh, yeah but... " syndrome. The issue of Death Panels recently that was interpreted in a slanted way to favor a point of view is a good example.

Our congress and presidents have been given, and taken, leeway for the better part of our nations history. The fact we still have troops in foreign lands without a formal declaration of war is an example of how ''the common Defense" has been loosely interpreted to allow it.

Originally Posted by honedright

Assuming private insurance survives. I don't see how it will. BTW, I don't know, but how well does private health insurance do in countries that currently have national health care? Is it a booming industry?

Oh, here's an interesting article: No one wants Quebec's limited private health insurance

No time right now to be sure, but it looks like Britain has only 2 private insurers?

http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/healt...tured-package/

Choice and competition?

Sorry for the

This is assuming there were as many private insurers in those countries before as the are NOW in the U.S. It has grown to be so lucrative in the US we have many different companies. I would be interested to know if were numerous companies before their differing systems of health care were put in place.

I doubt that is the case in Britain since it's been in place for so long.

Originally Posted by joscobo

This points out the problem with interpretation. If the wording is explicit it will still be interpreted in a way that makes it favorable to whatever position the individual or group wishes.

I call it the, "Oh, yeah but... " syndrome. The issue of Death Panels recently that was interpreted in a slanted way to favor a point of view is a good example.

Our congress and presidents have been given, and taken, leeway for the better part of our nations history. The fact we still have troops in foreign lands without a formal declaration of war is an example of how ''the common Defense" has been loosely interpreted to allow it.

This is why it is important to interpret the wording in context. Read the entire document. Read other documents produced by the same, or contemporary, writers (the Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution of Virginia for example).

Interpretation is only a problem where history is ignored, or more disturbingly, when political agendas become more important than obeying the law.

Originally Posted by joscobo

This is assuming there were as many private insurers in those countries before as the are NOW in the U.S. It has grown to be so lucrative in the US we have many different companies. I would be interested to know if were numerous companies before their differing systems of health care were put in place.

I doubt that is the case in Britain since it's been in place for so long.

Before, or not, it appears that the current public health care system in the UK and Canada is not favorable to a healthy and prosperous private health insurance industry.

Originally Posted by honedright

This is why it is important to interpret the wording in context. Read the entire document. Read other documents produced by the same, or contemporary, writers (the Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution of Virginia for example).

Interpretation is only a problem where history is ignored, or more disturbingly, when political agendas become more important than obeying the law.

I agree. But people being people they will interpret it as they see fit. How many American's believe Jefferson and Washington and most of the founding fathers were big time Christians? Most do and interpret from that view point. So even knowing the history doesn't matter much. It's always been a populist interpretation. Always will be. Unless we can agree on history we can't agree on interpretation.