Forcing Americans To Buy Insurance Will Not Survive Court Challenge

[thundley4]

It's funny to watch someone as ill-informed as you attempt to educate the masses.  

The only chance he has to educate anyone is to preach to the mirror.

[deportliberals]

It's funny to watch someone as ill-informed as you attempt to educate the masses.  

I've been mopping the floor with you...apparently you're so uninformed you don't even know it...wanna jump in any of my threads for a debate??  How about pointing to any inaccuracies???    

[NHSparky]

To educate the uninformed like you...hurl an insult and I'll make sure one comes back at you...

Oh, you're not long for this world, are ya kid?

[bkg]

I've been mopping the floor with you...apparently you're so uninformed you don't even know it...wanna jump in any of my threads for a debate??  How about pointing to any inaccuracies???    

I've already pointed out a couple of times why you are incorrect on the madate. While it will go to the SCOTUS, they can easily get it through because there is an opt-out. Costly, but still an opt-out. It will be spun that it is not a mandate since you do'nt have to participate.

For some reason you seem incapable of understand that.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

In your post above, you said there are no mandates!  It is clear that you do not know what the world "mandate" means!  Here, the Heritage Foundation analysis of 3200 discussing the PRIVATE MANDATE:

http://www.heritage.org/Press/FactSheet/fs0036.cfm
 
Now on to your failed understanding about WHY it is a mandate.  According to the U.S. Census CPS count, there are some 29 million americans without insurance who can easily afford insurance...10 million who make more than $75/k per year and 9 million of 18 to 34 yearolds who have access to insurance but want to spend their money on other things.

These 29 million people will be forced to purchase insurance against their will and that is not an "option" but a mandate!   Do you get it??

Heritage is solid...you on the other hand...meh

bkg is not saying anything defamatory so calm the **** down. These government shits always fabricate workarounds for laws they fiund troubling to their agendas. This is his point and it needs to be heeded.

Here in Colorado we have a STATE CONSTITUTIONAL amendment that says the government cannot raise taxes without a referendum. A fat lot of good that did us...now they just jack-up fees for license plates etc whenever they want more money.

Technically, it is NOT a mandate because you can choose to not purchase insurance...you'll just pay more taxes as opposed to a criminal penalty. A direct criminal penalty would make it too obvious so they go with taxes as the punishment that isn't a punishment because such things would never pass constitutional or electoral muster. Even if you refuse to pay the taxes you won't be prosecuted for refusing healthcare insurance but simply for tax evasion.

THAT is the salient point because that is exactly the line of argument these compassion-fascists will take before SCOTUS. You may think it's Orwellian bullshit...I know I do...but to get whiny with bkg for pointing out the obviously true is not a slap against you (although you do deserve to be slapped for being such a whiny, hyper-defensive little bitch).

[deportliberals]

I've already pointed out a couple of times why you are incorrect on the madate.

You have pointed out nothing!  First you denied the mandate even existed (see you post above) and I had to give the page number(296) of the mandate, and I just brought a link from the Heritage Foundation showing you to be utterly uninformed on the issue of private mandates.  Second, you have demonstrated you don't even understand the working definition of "mandate."  Third, until I informed you, you had no idea there were some 29 million americans who chose NOT to buy insurance and it is these people who will be FORCED via "mandate" to purchase Obamacare or face fines/penalities in the form of tax surcharges...that's THE mandate.

You've lost on every point and you know it...you're just too easy.

[bkg]

You have pointed out nothing!  First you denied the mandate even existed (see you post above) and I had to give the page number(296) of the mandate, and I just brought a link from the Heritage Foundation showing you to be utterly uninformed on the issue of private mandates.  Second, you have demonstrated you don't even understand the working definition of "mandate."  Third, until I informed you, you had no idea there were some 29 million americans who chose NOT to buy insurance and it is these people who will be FORCED via "mandate" to purchase Obamacare or face fines/penalities in the form of tax surcharges...that's THE mandate.

You've lost on every point and you know it...you're just too easy.

I highlighted the salient point in your post. The single word that YOU chose to incorporate into your argument that proves you wrong.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

You have pointed out nothing!  First you denied the mandate even existed (see you post above) and I had to give the page number(296) of the mandate, and I just brought a link from the Heritage Foundation showing you to be utterly uninformed on the issue of private mandates.  Second, you have demonstrated you don't even understand the working definition of "mandate."  Third, until I informed you, you had no idea there were some 29 million americans who chose NOT to buy insurance and it is these people who will be FORCED via "mandate" to purchase Obamacare or face fines/penalities in the form of tax surcharges...that's THE mandate.

You've lost on every point and you know it...you're just too easy.

get over yourself

[deportliberals]

Heritage is solid...you on the other hand...meh

Everything I have said is in line with Heritage...you denying that?  Point where I am not in line with Heritage on the "mandate issue"??

bkg is not saying anything defamatory so calm the **** down.

What's with the calm down stuff?  bkg just told me I was "incapable of understanding" and I responded with "facts" asking him "do you get it'?  You do know how to read right?  I'm talking about posts that are just a couple of positions away from this post.

And you're wrong about the debate issue I've been having with bkg.  I asked bkg if he wanted to debate the point about the "mandate" and he said yes!  That is what we have been debating and anyone reading this thread should know that...it was spelled out for you up front.  He just lost on the mandate issue and made a post about SCOTUS.  Keep up if you're gonna criticize me!

Technically, it is NOT a mandate because you can choose to not purchase insurance...you'll just pay more taxes as opposed to a criminal penalty.

Technically it IS a mandate because it prescribes by law what you must do or pay a penalty that heretofore did not exist.  There is a reason why the bill's language says MANDATE, why Heritage, CATO and the Congressional Resarch Services Org all call it a mandate...that's because it is a mandate.  Pelosi call it a mandate...it's her bill.

[deportliberals]

I highlighted the salient point in your post. The single word that YOU chose to incorporate into your argument that proves you wrong.

There is no single word that makes any of my statements wrong.  And I see NO highlighting from you.  You have been arguing with the facts, not me.  You say there is no mandate!  The Heritage Foundation, CATO and the Congressional Research Services all say you're wrong.  You have brought ZERO links, facts, sources, cites to the table that would even remotely back up your claim..nothing but hot air.

Further, your interpretation of the word mandate is hilarious!  When one is being FORCED to do something by edict/law that is a mandate.  That you are trying to fence with me on semantics to mask your defeat is also hilarious.  Next time read up. 

[deportliberals]

get over yourself

Another brilliant statement from one who is incapable of discussing the issue.  Care to comment on the topic of this thread? 

[NHSparky]

Another brilliant statement from one who is incapable of discussing the issue.  Care to comment on the topic of this thread? 

Sure--once you can show us you've read all 2000 pages of the bill.

[Thor]

Another brilliant statement from one who is incapable of discussing the issue.  Care to comment on the topic of this thread? 

Attention ALL HANDS: Let's attempt to discuss this a little better instead of the constant hurling of insults. While this is NOW in the fight club,this didn't haven't to be moved here.

[bkg]

There is no single word that makes any of my statements wrong.  And I see NO highlighting from you.  You have been arguing with the facts, not me.  You say there is no mandate!  The Heritage Foundation, CATO and the Congressional Research Services all say you're wrong.  You have brought ZERO links, facts, sources, cites to the table that would even remotely back up your claim..nothing but hot air.

Further, your interpretation of the word mandate is hilarious!  When one is being FORCED to do something by edict/law that is a mandate.  That you are trying to fence with me on semantics to mask your defeat is also hilarious.  Next time read up. 

Look. If I told you that from now on you HAD to get up at 6am or pay me $20 if you wanted to sleep in. Would that be a mandate? No. You have a choice. It's not a good choice, but it is a choice. And that's how the courts will eventually find this: that there is a choice.

BTW - read my quote of you again and find the highlighted, itealicized, bolded and underlined word that, in your own words, shows how the gov't is providing a choice. I don't like the choices - they suck ass and are a huge violation of the spirit of COTUS, but I suspect they'll pass muster.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Everything I have said is in line with Heritage...you denying that?  Point where I am not in line with Heritage on the "mandate issue"??

What's with the calm down stuff?  bkg just told me I was "incapable of understanding" and I responded with "facts" asking him "do you get it'?  You do know how to read right?  I'm talking about posts that are just a couple of positions away from this post.

And you're wrong about the debate issue I've been having with bkg.  I asked bkg if he wanted to debate the point about the "mandate" and he said yes!  That is what we have been debating and anyone reading this thread should know that...it was spelled out for you up front.  He just lost on the mandate issue and made a post about SCOTUS.  Keep up if you're gonna criticize me!

The balance of my post which you quoted but did not respond to contains my answer.

And yes, I can read...and I can even comprehend. That is why even though I myself refer to the mandates as mandates I also understand full well how the compassion fascists intend to get around the constitution and I can also read--and comprehend--from bkg's comments that he understands this as well. That is why, unlike you, I am not threatened by bkg's statements. We call them mandates as part of a vernacular shorthand but when the cases go to court the libs will argue technicalities to claim they are not.

By what measure do you imagine yourself competent to come to this forum, insult its veteran members, extol your virtues while making blanket declarations of the ignorance of all others and proclaim yourself uniquely qualified to instruct all the while dismissing the argurments that don't even contradict your citations but actually underscore your essential points with hyper-sensitive bleating tones? Do you imagine yourself some sort of conservative John the Baptist?

I'm watching both sides of the debate in this thread and while neither of you is wrong on merits you singularly are the biggest puss-tard this side of the internet.

And lay off the ****ing exclamation points, Francis.

Another brilliant statement from one who is incapable of discussing the issue.  Care to comment on the topic of this thread?  

Now you're just being a shitbag because I did when you first responded to me. It's quoted in your response (bad taggery BTW) but you never responded to the substance of my statement.

[deportliberals]

Sure--once you can show us you've read all 2000 pages of the bill.

I don't have to!  The Heritage Foundation and Cato Inst have done that for me. I provided the link...oh yeah..you don't read links, right?

[bkg]

I don't have to!  The Heritage Foundation and Cato Inst have done that for me. I provided the link...oh yeah..you don't read links, right?

Dude... really? C'mon. One could easily argue that relying on an intermediate to interpret the bill as hearsay. Sorry, dude, don't mean to be a prick about it, but you're not playing by your own rules.

[deportliberals]

Look. If I told you that from now on you HAD to get up at 6am or pay me $20 if you wanted to sleep in. Would that be a mandate? No. You have a choice.

Technically/lawfully it IS a mandate because it prescribes by law what you must do or pay a penalty that heretofore did not exist.  There is a reason why the bill's language says MANDATE, why Heritage, CATO and the Congressional Research Services Org all call it a mandate...that's because it is a mandate.  Pelosi calls it a mandate...it's her bill.  Gee...you  lose.

[deportliberals]

Dude... really? C'mon. One could easily argue that relying on an intermediate to interpret the bill as hearsay.

Wrong!  They(Heritage, CATO and CRS) quote the language which is NOT the act hearsay but of providing the reader documented text...something your friend could not do.

And You lose again. 

[NHSparky]

Good Christ, it's as if he shouts something at the top of his lungs, and when someone dares to question him, he sticks his fingers in his ears and goes, "LALALALALALA!!!!"

[bkg]

Technically/lawfully it IS a mandate because it prescribes by law what you must do or pay a penalty that heretofore did not exist.  There is a reason why the bill's language says MANDATE, why Heritage, CATO and the Congressional Research Services Org all call it a mandate...that's because it is a mandate.  Pelosi calls it a mandate...it's her bill.  Gee...you  lose.

I understand your point, but you're missing mine. You said the court would dismiss as unconstitutional because it forces people into a contract for health insurance. If that were the case, I would agree. But it doesn't "force" - it just manipulates the situation in such a way that makes it incredibly painful if you choose to not participate. The fact that they give you a choice is what is going to get them through the courts.

[NHSparky]

It's much like mandatory car insurance.  Sure, you can drive without it, but God help you in most states if you're without it.

[deportliberals]

The balance of my post which you quoted but did not respond to contains my answer.

First, yours was an insult that I responded to. Second, I addressed your failure to follow the thread before criticizing me.  You stupidly we thought Kbg and I were debating the SCOTUS issue when, in fact, we were debating the "mandate" issue...read much?

By what measure do you imagine yourself competent to come to this forum, insult its veteran members

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha...I am more than competent for this forum.  I am the only one posting facts and links, unlike you and your fellow whatevers.  Do show me your links, facts or those of your fellow whatevers in this thread???  Just hot gas, nothing more.  And I only insult AFTER being insulted...count on it.    

I'm watching both sides of the debate in this thread and while neither of you is wrong on merits you singularly are the biggest puss-tard this side of the internet.

First, I am 100% correct on the merits and I (and only I) have proved that with links and facts.  You guys have ZERO on that point.  Further, kdg has been ripped so badly on the mandate issue that he is now just blathering...scared to death I'll bring the websters definition of mandate and finish him off.

And lay off the ******* exclamation points, Francis.

Don't even try to dicatate my syntax or graphics...sounds awfully facist don't you think?!!!!!!!!!!???????????  What's next...don't use the color blue???

[docstew]

I don't have to!  The Heritage Foundation and Cato Inst have done that for me. I provided the link...oh yeah..you don't read links, right?

wouldn't that qualify as hearsay, since someone else is telling you what's in it?

by your standards, hearsay doesn't work in this forum, so you better go read the bill yourself.  see ya in a month.

[deportliberals]

I understand your point, but you're missing mine.

Wrong!  I have addressed your point repeatedly throughout this thread using linked FACTS and the WORKING DEFINITION of what a mandate is.  You think because there is an "option"...that in some weird way eliminates the mandate aspect.  IT DOES NOT!  WHY? Because where there was no force of law requirement in existence, there will now be one and THAT IS THE MANDATE!  Where 29 million americans could freely (without any penalty) refuse to purchase healthcare, they must now buy healthcare or be fined...THAT IS THE MANDATE.  The optional feature of YOU must be on Obamacare or pay a penalty is irrelevant to the mandate.  

The fact that they give you a choice is what is going to get them through the courts.

WRONG!  Read it again!  The issue that will take Obamacare before the court is forced purchase of healthcare...did you even bother to READ the link???