Constitutionality of Obamacare

So, post #140 says nay, post #128 says yay. Which is correct?

Everybody likes to make their own narrative of what 'the problem' is, and then they've got the perfect solution. However I am yet to see any real data that indicate a particular policy will yield better results than another policy.

As far as I am concerned as long as talking points trump numbers you'll get a political solution which can and will be changed depending on what sounds more convincing.

So nobody wants to point me where to find Obamacare? I thought at some point I'd be able to contribute on the topic at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

So nobody wants to point me where to find Obamacare?

---

It's currently being heavily amended in the House of Representatives in Washington D.C.

Can I have the original unamended version then? May be that is the unconstitutional one and the amendments will fix that?

You are absolutely correct. Here is a scholarly and gentlmanly note though. Did you know that there is no real data that proved Penicillin was beneficial in curing bacterial pneumonia when it was used in 1929. But guess what, that is because when the trial was done, the results were so overwhelming that they stopped the control groups and the trial because the researchers felt they were harming the controls by not giving the drug. IN fact, they later collected the urine(since this is how your body excretes it unchanged) of patients using the drug to try to maintain supplies and not loose it.
Here is some true data, if you cut the federal government by 90%, the savings that to taxpayers would be $3.24Trillion based on the proposed budget by Obama next year. You want real date, this is simple math.
I know it a whole lot more complicated, so thats why we have politicians to make it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bromion

Sheesh, talk about "talking points."

---

TALKING POINTS!!!! DARN STRAIGHT, THEY ARE OBAMA'S TALKING POINTS!!! He wants the restribution of wealth! And he wants to do it through legislation.

Don't beleive me?

Listen to him in his own words.

YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Can I have the original unamended version then?

---

No; the amendments are being amended daily

You ask for too much!

i believe i heard today that there are over 560 amendments ready for this bill even before it becomes a bill, now i ask you, how do you amend something that does not exist in full. i call that putting the horse before the cart.

By the way, in case you did not hear it in the audio clip, Obama says that the Warren Court (supreme court at the time of the civil rights movement) did not go far enough, because it did not break free from the contraints of the constitution which were place there by the founding fathers.

Is he trying to break free from those constraints now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by treydampier

Did you know that there is no real data that proved Penicillin was beneficial in curing bacterial pneumonia when it was used in 1929. But guess what, that is because when the trial was done, the results were so overwhelming that they stopped the control groups and the trial because the researchers felt they were harming the controls by not giving the drug.

---

It seems to me that the difference in mortality rates in pneumonia before penicillin was invented and after it was used is real data. Obviously the smaller the effect you are trying to measure the more precisely you have to control the experiment, there is no mystery about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by treydampier

Here is some true data, if you cut the federal government by 90%, the savings that to taxpayers would be $3.24Trillion based on the proposed budget by Obama next year. You want real date, this is simple math.
I know it a whole lot more complicated, so thats why we have politicians to make it that way.

---

Yes, this is real data and simple math. Now imagine you just apply what you seem to be proposing - cut 90% of the government spending with the corresponding cut in taxes. You personally are not making more than $60,000 a year and after standard deductions your tax is no more than $10,000. You will get 90% of it, so you will have an extra $9,000, or $750/month.
The society that you will have to live in however will be rather different from what you're used to. It certainly depends how that 90% cut is being implemented, but no matter what you do the military spending will be cut by more than half, spending on social programs a lot more. Research money will be probably zero.
Consider all the people who are affected negatively by your proposal and the changes in society that will result from their situation worsening. If that your extra $750/month will provide you enough cushion to deal with what is coming, then the simple math does work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

I am just following a simple logic. According to you women and non whites always had the same rights, bestowed to them by a non-governmental entity, you like to call a Creator. Would you deny that the government system the founding fathers set up treated them very differently than it treated white males? If yes, why did the original constitution had to be amended in this respect, if not, why the differences?
It seems to me the government protecting some people and not others doesn't square with all the pathos.

---

I think the constitution the framers created was ahead, maybe way ahead, of it's time. It has taken time for it's principles to become established, and the process continues.

Remember, "Rome wasn't built in a day."