Forcing Americans To Buy Insurance Will Not Survive Court Challenge

[Chump]

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???

Yes, precisely.  And what would get it through review has been highlighted over and over ad nauseam.  You even responded to it:

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

No one here is saying, "Wow what a fair choice.  This is totally Constitutional."  We're saying that will be the argument presented by Obamacare supporters.

If you'd stop your raging lunacy you might see that we're at least partially in agreement.

[thundley4]

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???

OR

It may very well go before the USSC, but that little word OR will give them all wiggle room they need to say that it passes Constitutional muster.  Some might argue about it falling under the commerce clause also.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

POINT: 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.

Regardless of whatever Orwellian BS the liberals will try they will, if pressed into a court, declare 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.

The word isn't nearly as big an issue as the fact liberals will say whatever they need to say to get what they want. The issue isn't semantics but how they intend to skirt the constitution.

No one here is saying, "Wow what a fair choice.  This is totally Constitutional."  We're saying that will be the argument presented by Obamacare supporters.

If you'd stop your raging lunacy you might see that we're at least partially in agreement.

What he said.

[vesta111]

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.

Lots of us have to buy mandatory insurance.

For instance, if I do not pay my home owners insurance the bank I owe will foreclose or demand I pay the note in full with in 60 days.  No one forced me to buy my home or to agree to the banks regulations.

If I were to move to down town Boston I could take public transportation and sell my car, it is my choice to own a car but I must have insurance to drive it

This health insurance thing gives people no choice. 

They say for now at least, that we can keep what ever insurance plan we want for a number of years until we are mandated to switch over to the Federal Plan.

So if one is 23 today and gets a good job with health benefits they can afford, when they hit 33 then they are at the Mersey of the government as to what they will pay, who you will have treat you and what tests you are allowed.

Who will be exempt from this law, the Ghetto folk who get State aid, the illegals, believe me there will be exemptions built in that everyone will miss for a couple of years.
 
That 2,000 page monstrosity had hundreds to pages of rules and regulations that we will no know about until the Government decides to pull them out of the middle of the pile and announce---BUT-BUT, its the LAW.

This issue is so confusing to everyone, how anyone thinks the average man on the street is going to give up his Friday night of Bowling to spend the weekend with that thing in their lap, a coppie the the Constitution in right hand and a dictionary in the left is NUTS.

BTW, please keep it up DL, everytime you are corrected for a mistake by the old timers
who respond to you, I am getting an education.  Oh and I can read you DL, when you begin to show disrespect for your elders that is worthy of a gutter snipe, then I know for sure you are wrong.

BBTW-------You have said your dad is a Lawyer.?     When does he get out and how many years has he been in the joint. If I had a foul mouth kid like you and I was a lawyer I would have divorced your mother years ago.

[Chris_]

Damn Vesta, every time I read a couple of posts of yours, and start to think maybe you're sloughing on your meds a bit, you pull a post like this - clear, relatively concise, articulate and to the point - and you throw me right back to square one with regards to figuring you out.

You're doing this to me intentionally, aren't you? 

I'd Hi5 you, if the button were still here.

[vesta111]

Damn Vesta, every time I read a couple of posts of yours, and start to think maybe you're sloughing on your meds a bit, you pull a post like this - clear, relatively concise, articulate and to the point - and you throw me right back to square one with regards to figuring you out.

You're doing this to me intentionally, aren't you? 

I'd Hi5 you, if the button were still here.

Darn I am in fact slipping to go so far out of charactor.

[bkg]

 The optional feature of YOU must be on Obamacare or pay a penalty is irrelevant to the mandate.  

I should have ordered Beck's book before attempting to discuss anything you. 

[deportliberals]

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!!!!"

Has nothing to do with questioning!  Kgb does not understand the word "mandate" and thus is trying to bastardize it.  It is that simple.

[deportliberals]

I should have ordered Beck's book before attempting to discuss anything you. 

No...what you should have done is look up the word "mandate" to understand its correct meaning and correct usage.  Here, educate yourself:

 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mandate

You will find nowhere in any dictionary a subset definition for "mandate" that has anything to do with "options" or "choices."  For days now, you have made a complete fool out of yourself trying to spin the meaning of "mandate" into something it is not, and you did this in the face of hardcore professional analysis I brought to this site from The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, CRS.  And, of course, let's not forget the teams of high priced constitutional lawyers who wrote the bill and also defined it as a mandate.

When you lose you lose BIG.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

No...what you should have done is look up the word "mandate" to understand its correct meaning and correct usage.  Here, educate yourself:

 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mandate

You will find nowhere in any dictionary a subset definition for "mandate" that has anything to do with "options" or "choices."  For days now, you have made a complete fool out of yourself trying to spin the meaning of "mandate" into something it is not, and you did this in the face of hardcore professional analysis I brought to this site from The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, CRS.  And, of course, let's not forget the teams of high priced constitutional lawyers who wrote the bill and also defined it as a mandate.

When you lose you lose BIG.

And what will YOUR definition of mandate say when the liberals tell you that THEY are NOT mandating because they give you the choice of paying the opt-out tax?

[deportliberals]

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.

First we have kdg demonstrating that he doesn't have a clue what the word "mandate" means(see my post with proper definition) and now this poster demonstrating that he doesn't have a clue what "hearsay" means.  What the hell is going on around here???

Below is the proper definition of hearsay and some examples of proper usage.  You will note that it means...RUMOR, GOSSIP, SCUTTLEBUTT or unverified info passed from one person to another.  Hence, my using Heritage Foundation analysis done by professionals quoting language from the bill is NOT an example of hearsay.

 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hearsay

[deportliberals]

And what will YOUR definition of mandate say when the liberals tell you that THEY are NOT mandating because they give you the choice of paying the opt-out tax?

First, it is not my definition...comes from the dictionary. Second, leftists lying & spinning about the mandate is to be expected and rejected.  They have lied about virtually every aspect of Obamacare...what's knew? 

The 29 million americans who can afford private healthcare but, for whatever reasons chose not to purchase it, are going to be royally pissed when they learn that they are "mandated" TO purchase insurance or be hit with a surtax penalty that will increase over time.

The mandate is to buy insurance or else!   

[bkg]

And what will YOUR definition of mandate say when the liberals tell you that THEY are NOT mandating because they give you the choice of paying the opt-out tax?

You can lead a horse to water... but you can't fix stupid.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

First, it is not my definition...comes from the dictionary. Second, leftists lying & spinning about the mandate is to be expected and rejected.  They have lied about virtually every aspect of Obamacare...what's knew? 

The 29 million americans who can afford private healthcare but, for whatever reasons chose not to purchase it, are going to be royally pissed when they learn that they are "mandated" TO purchase insurance or be hit with a surtax penalty that will increase over time.

The mandate is to buy insurance or else!   

You can reject it all you want to...but that is the argument they're going to take to court when their "mandate" gets challenged...and they'll only one court ruling away from stare decisis. Your rejecting the argument out of hand does nothing to counter their position it merely betrays a poverty of thought.

The issue is: how do we make sure the law never gets enacted in the first place (and by "we" I do not include you, only myself and fellow conservatives who are capable of cogent thought and rational response)?

[deportliberals]

and they'll only one court ruling away from stare decisis.

Assuming you even know what stare decisis even means do tell me which precedent you're talking about???

Your rejecting the argument out of hand does nothing to counter their position it merely betrays a poverty of thought.

Show where I rejected the "argument"????  I said that their attempt to lie and spin that point is to be expected!  In what world is that me rejecting the argument?

The issue is: how do we make sure the law never gets enacted in the first place (and by "we" I do not include you, only myself and fellow conservatives who are capable of cogent thought and rational response)?

Well, first you're an embarassment to conservatism so I am proud to be rudely excluded from your group. Second, check your 9th grade civics book to learn how a bill becomes a law and then you will be able to answer your own question preventing this bill from being enacted.

[Thor]

OK, ALL of Y'all need to knock off the insults being tossed back and forth. That is NOT a suggestion !!!!

[DumbAss Tanker]

OK, ALL of Y'all need to knock off the insults being tossed back and forth. That is NOT a suggestion !!!!

Concur.

[Chump]

Show where I rejected the "argument"????  I said that their attempt to lie and spin that point is to be expected!  In what world is that me rejecting the argument?

Actually, you said:

Second, leftists lying & spinning about the mandate is to be expected and rejected.

Since you didn't immediately offer your counter-argument, this statement amounts to rejecting it out-of-hand.

Sheesh, if you can't even remember what you just typed a few posts ago, how do you expect to have a calm, rational discussion about anything?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Assuming you even know what stare decisis even means do tell me which precedent you're talking about???

The one that will be set when someone sues over the "mandate" and some liberal judge accepts the liberal argument as to how it isn't a manafdate because you can pay a tax to opt-out.

I was speaking in future-tense. If you need to look-up what future-tense means I'll wait. Hopefully you left your search browser open from when you were looking-up stare decisis.

Show where I rejected the "argument"????  I said that their attempt to lie and spin that point is to be expected!  In what world is that me rejecting the argument?

The part where you wrote, "leftists lying & spinning about the mandate is to be expected and rejected" without saying WHY it should be rejected.

Well, first you're an embarassment to conservatism so I am proud to be rudely excluded from your group. Second, check your 9th grade civics book to learn how a bill becomes a law and then you will be able to answer your own question preventing this bill from being enacted.

And you shall be a movement all to yourself. One big movement.

And we deserve a courtesy flush.

OK, ALL of Y'all need to knock off the insults being tossed back and forth. That is NOT a suggestion !!!!

He started it.

*pouts*

[NHSparky]

Dude, take your toys and go home already.  It's not as if you're held here against your will.  Log out, delete, tell your mom you're going to the store for more Cheetos.  It's okay.

Oh, and you are aware that the SCOTUS has reversed itself something like 140-150 times over the past 60 years, right?  Would you like a few examples?

How's about:

Texas vs. Johnson

Brown vs. Board of Education

And of course, a few more can be found HERE.

Or the fact that our own Chief Justice, John Roberts, would likely rule to uphold Roe vs. Wade because of it?  

[Chris_]

[deportliberals]

OK, ALL of Y'all need to knock off the insults being tossed back and forth. That is NOT a suggestion !!!!

Works for me...been trying to discuss the issue for two days now.

[deportliberals]

Actually, you said:

Since you didn't immediately offer your counter-argument, this statement amounts to rejecting it out-of-hand.

Better read it again:

"Second, leftists lying & spinning about the mandate is to be expected and rejected."

I was clearly not talking about rejecting the legal basis for their argument, I was talking in generic terms about how the left always lies and spins virtually everything and thus this absrud spin should be rejected as well.  I'll let you know when I am talking about legal standing and precedents, etc.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Better read it again:

"Second, leftists lying & spinning about the mandate is to be expected and rejected."

I was clearly not talking about rejecting the legal basis for their argument, I was talking in generic terms about how the left always lies and spins virtually everything and thus this absrud spin should be rejected as well.  I'll let you know when I am talking about legal standing and precedents, etc.

Then what is your response to the inevitable liberal claim that their mandate is not a mandate because they gave you the choice to pay an opt-out tax?

That's the point we've been trying to get answered for 2 days.

[Chump]

Better read it again:

"Second, leftists lying & spinning about the mandate is to be expected and rejected."

I was clearly not talking about rejecting the legal basis for their argument, I was talking in generic terms about how the left always lies and spins virtually everything and thus this absrud spin should be rejected as well.  I'll let you know when I am talking about legal standing and precedents, etc.

Oh ok.  In the future I'll make sure that instead of reading what you write, I'll try to crawl in your head and extrapolate what you actually meant to write based on some scenario you're imagining in your head.  My deepest apologies.