So 38 states might legislate against the new Socialized Medicine Act?

[AtheismIsReality]

Everyone can go to the ER to get their emergency care entitlement, so everyone should be paying in to cover costs.

Do Cons not remember the entitlements their leaders signed into law?

 

[OldTrapper]

It's not apples to Refrigerators. It's mandatory at least according to all 50 states. Let me ask you something DT. Show me in the Constitution that it's mandatory to drive on public roads with or with out Auto Insurance? It's the same question that these states are going to ask the SCOTUS to review in regards to Health Care Reform is it not? They lost the argument the minute they made Auto insurance mandatory.

Guess you don't understand the difference between the soveriegnty of the State, and that of the federal government.

Then explain how buying health insurance, which is limited to within a State, is covered by the federal authority over commerce.

 

[OldTrapper]

Everyone can go to the ER to get their emergency care entitlement, so everyone should be paying in to cover costs.

Do Cons not remember the entitlements their leaders signed into law?

Name an entitlement signed into law by a Republican especially a Conservative one.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Name an entitlement signed into law by a Republican especially a Conservative one.

Does allowing pharmaceutical-companies to rape Medicare count??

​

 

[Devil505]

Name an entitlement signed into law by a Republican especially a Conservative one.

Yea.....Much easier to name wars & taxcuts for the rich they sign. (neither of which they pay for)

 

[ktucan1]

not everyone drives, and no one is forced to. your argument is stupid

Your absolutely right about no one is forced to drive but show me some statistic saying the average American walks to work on a daily basis or runs errands rather than drive in this country. It's not a stupid argument because not everyone has access to public transportation so they have no choice but to drive and show me in the constitution that a state can force auto insurance on it's citizen? Come up with an better answer because so far I'm not impressed.

 

[ktucan1]

Guess you don't understand the difference between the soveriegnty of the State, and that of the federal government.

Then explain how buying health insurance, which is limited to within a State, is covered by the federal authority over commerce.

Alright and show me where it says in the commerce clause that a state can force someone to buy auto insurance? I don't like this health care reform neither but somehow I find it very very funny that these states can sue over having health insurance forced upon people but at the same time punish it's citizens if they don't have auto insurance? That is hypocrisy in it's purest form.

 

[Webrockk]

Your absolutely right about no one is forced to drive but show me some statistic saying the average American walks to work on a daily basis or runs errands rather than drive in this country. It's not a stupid argument because not everyone has access to public transportation so they have no choice but to drive and show me in the constitution that a state can force auto insurance on it's citizen? Come up with an better answer because so far I'm not impressed.

Automobile insurance is not "forced" on all Americans...

Since state Constitutions cannot "force" everyone to drive, I doubt they'd have have a clause "forcing" everyone to purchace auto insurance.

Since you opened the door to statistics and averages....Show me a statistic where the average American walks into the emergency room with no insurance, gets treated and doesn't pay.

 

[Devil505]

Automobile insurance is not "forced" on all Americans...

Since state Constitutions cannot "force" everyone to drive, I doubt they'd have have a clause "forcing" everyone to purchace auto insurance.

Since you opened the door to statistics and averages....Show me a statistic where the average American walks into the emergency room with no insurance, gets treated and doesn't pay.

Constitutionally it will be worded as a tax, against which your payments for insurance will be credited. Perfectly constitutional for the government to tax citizens.......so this desperate argument is just more BS.

 

[Webrockk]

Yes, a new tax ...at the end of a gun...forever.

Glad you finally admitted to the wealth redistribution / entitlement aspects of your beloved Presidents HCR efforts.

 

[Devil505]

Yes, a new tax ...at the end of a gun...forever.

Glad you finally admitted to the wealth redistribution / entitlement aspects of your beloved Presidents HCR efforts.

All taxes are collected at the end of a gun. Your side's unconstitutional argument is utter BS.
Redistribution of wealth is just being reversed. Your side spent a decade stealing from the middle class & giving to the rich....Our Turn!

 

[Webrockk]

All taxes are collected at the end of a gun. Your side's unconstitutional argument is utter BS.
Redistribution of wealth is just being reversed. Your side spent a decade stealing from the middle class & giving to the rich....Our Turn!

Allowing someone to keep more of what they earn is not stealing from anyone...that tired leftist mantra doesn't wash.

For the sake of simplicity, I'm gonna toss out some approximate numbers.

135 million out of 300 million Americans are employed.

45 million of those employed have zero federal income tax liability.

This leaves 90 million folks paying not only for their health care, but for subsidized or "free" health care for the remaining 210 million.

If you want to argue the Constitutionality of our progressive tax system, I can present arguments that it blatantly violates the "equal, unalienable rights" afforded all citizens of the U.S., so tacking on an additional tax responsibility to these 90 million is in fact unconstitutional, since it penalizes, or lessens one groups individual rights in order to benefit another individuals identical rights.

Are your "equal", unalienable rights more important than mine?

 

[Devil505]

If you want to argue the Constitutionally of our progressive tax system, I can present arguements that it violates the "equal, unalienable rights" afforded all citizens of the U.S., so tacking on an additional tax responsibility to these 90 million is in fact unconstitutional since it penalizes one groups individual rights to benefit another individuals identical rights.

Already been argued in front of the Supreme Court & failed.
I get the feeling you are not a rich man Web......Why do you continue to carry water for them against your own interests?

 

[Webrockk]

Already been argued in front of the Supreme Court & failed.
I get the feeling you are not a rich man Web......Why do you continue to carry water for them against your own interests?

Who is "them"?

I'm far from "rich", Devil, but I wrote four checks to the IRS for quarterly income taxes totaling $24,000.00 last year. That comes to two grand a month that wasn't spent in the economy patronizing small businessess, giving to charity, employing more part time help, etc....It was all forked over for collective "infrastucture" (failing, expensive and inept, I might add), staffing more and more centralized bureaucracy (16,000 new IRS agents coming soon!) and direct payments to social entitlement recipients (HCR guarantees more on the dole!!)

As you might imagine, I am a strong advocate for consumer based taxation.

I carry water for mine and my family's interest, period. Unlike you and the rest of your ilk, I'm not envious of others, nor do I desire anyone's individual rights to be stomped on in favor of mine.

 

[OldTrapper]

Alright and show me where it says in the commerce clause that a state can force someone to buy auto insurance? I don't like this health care reform neither but somehow I find it very very funny that these states can sue over having health insurance forced upon people but at the same time punish it's citizens if they don't have auto insurance? That is hypocrisy in it's purest form.

As far as the States are concerned they consider it a public safety issue, not one of commerce.

The States that are suing are suing the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and the issue of mandating one buy auto insurance is not germaine to the argument. You must separate the powers of the fed from that of the individual States.

On the State issue, since it is not a federal mandate the resident of that State is the one who has to challenge those mandatory laws, and then it is up to the State courts to make that determination.

If the doofus Democrats had allowed for the Republican plan of buying health insurance across State lines then their commerce clause argument may have had some validity. However, in their rush to deny Republicans any role in this bogus bill they have shot themselves in the foot again.