Thread: Constitutionality of Obamacare

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..

I got the tab.
I for one do not mind sending my tax dollars off to a government that spends it in a way that I see as appropriate. It so happens that the current administration is more likely to spend that money for what I consider the proper causes. Helping the downtrodden, improving the condition of the most in need, all that stuff.
Would I prefer a world in which everyone gave as much as they could to help others? OH YEAH! Private institutions raising money from the willing in order to end hunger and provide healthcare? Wouldn't that be grand! But we wouldn't. If the government doesn't fix healtcare, people will continue to die or suffer because the current system is broken. The "market" will not fix this.

Originally Posted by commiecat

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

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."

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

Helping the downtrodden, improving the condition of the most in need, all that stuff.

Hmmmm I always thought that was for Churches and Families to do????

Unfortunately you guys are glossing over so many social issues here thinking of the normal socialist agenda, "The Government can fix it if we just throw enough money at it"...

Please somebody stop the roller-coaster and let me off this ride...

Please name one thing the Government has ever fixed?????

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Hmmmm I always thought that was for Churches and Families to do????

That would be nice!

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Hmmmm I always thought that was for Churches and Families to do????

Unfortunately you guys are glossing over so many social issues here thinking of the normal socialist agenda, "The Government can fix it if we just throw enough money at it"...

Please somebody stop the roller-coaster and let me off this ride...

Please name one thing the Government has ever fixed?????

Glen you are exactly correct! BUT... everyone else is too!

Glen you are a Positive Economist- positive economy looks at how the market is hindered by the government- a true free market (with regards to any good or service) is the most efficient at maximizing the total happiness in a society. That does mean some people get the short end of the stick, but the whole society is better off.

Everyone else- Jimmy being the most prominent- you ar Normative Economists- believing economy and spending should have morals. This means you're introducing a lot of market inefficiency and possibly causing some people to have less, in fact causing society as a whole to be a little bit worse off, in order to make sure everyone meets a certain minimum.

Now who is right? No one knows... Positives ask "what IS true" and Normatives ask "what SHOULD BE true". Different questions, who is right? To state "Hitler WAS the dictator of Germany" is correct, and to state "Hitler SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN the dictator of Germany" is also correct. So who wins? There's always two sides to the economic coin. No free lunch and all that jazz.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

I got the tab.

BTW I forgot to say thank you there, at least you are willing...

Also speaking of the Constitution I would like this amendment added...

"No Citizen shall be allowed to vote at any election, if they are accepting Government assistance of any kind...

If you earned or paid into this assistance then it would be excepted... ie:
SSI, SSD, Medicaid/Medicare etc:

What do you guys think.. if you are accepting "charity" so to speak, why should you have a say in the matter???? or is my thinking totally wrong???


LOL I know I know I am not going to get elected hehehe

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Also speaking of the Constitution I would like this amendment added...

"No Citizen shall be allowed to vote at any election, if they are accepting Government assistance of any kind...

If you earned or paid into this assistance then it would be excepted... ie:
SSI, SSD, Medicaid/Medicare etc:

What do you guys think.. if you are accepting "charity" so to speak, why should you have a say in the matter???? or is my thinking totally wrong???


LOL I know I know I am not going to get elected hehehe

So everyone brings the last 10 years tax returns to the polls with them, where an IRS CPA does an audit prior to being allowed into the voting booth?

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

So everyone brings the last 10 years tax returns to the polls with them, where an IRS CPA does an audit prior to being allowed into the voting booth?

No, what Glen meant to say is he wants the 16th amendment repealed