I think you're wrong. As the bill is written, the gov't is not forcing anyone to buy health insurance. They're just going to increase your taxes if you don't. Unfortunately, there's a difference.
The same thing was said when auto insurance became mandatory.
They said the same thing when the government started taking money out of our checks for retirement, Medicare, etc.
I think you're wrong. As the bill is written, the gov't is not forcing anyone to buy health insurance. They're just going to increase your taxes if you don't. Unfortunately, there's a difference.
No...I am right! The Hosue bill madates that EVERYONE must purchase health insurance if they are not already covered by their employer's plan or in the public plan. It fines first time offenders $200 and that fine goes up to $700 per individual.
This little goodie comes straight out of Hillarycare, 1993. Hence, the government is forcing you to buy insurance. The tax side of it you mention goes to employers who refuse to provide insurance coverage.
Care to debate any of this?
I certainly haven't read the bill, but I suspect that they are tiptoeing around the Constitution like they usually do......
They got away with McCain-Feingold didn't they? In my opinion a flagrant violation of the 1st........
doc
I believe the side saying it is not a forced purchase since you can either purchase OR pay a penalty/fee has the strongest argument on this, the distinction between State car insurance schemes and Federal health insurance isn't really germane, if was an unlawful taking under the 5th/14th Amendments in the Federal case, the same rights would have kept the State schemes from ever going into effect.
If this thing is going to be killed, it needs to be killed or at least neutered in Congress, the courts are not going to be much help or even particularly timely in getting around to being unhelpful.
Go ahead. Let's debate.
Show me where the bill forces anyone to buy insurance. It simply does not.
It gives you the option - buy or be taxed to death. When there's an option, no matter how manipulative, it's still an option and not forced participation.
I think you are correct, had they stuck with a mandate, without the tax penalty alternative they might have faced a challenge, but as it stands, I don't think so.......
doc
Read page 296...mandate and tax penalty are there.
Actually.....I was responding to DAT.......who addressed both points......
doc
Gotta go now...I'll be back...
This approach is how they got away with the original "machine gun ban" back in the 'thirties........congress knew that an outright ban would face a challenge under the 2nd Amendment, so they got around it with a registration scheme, and a $200 tax, which was a hell of a lot of money in 1938.......then they proceeded to come back later with import and manufacture date limitations........never an outright "ban", but so close that it became, at present, nearly indistinguishable from one.......
I certainly haven't read the bill, but I suspect that they are tiptoeing around the Constitution like they usually do......
They got away with McCain-Feingold didn't they? In my opinion a flagrant violation of the 1st........
doc
The Hughes Amendment
The restrictions on full-auto firearms are a result of the Hughes Amendment (99th Congress, H.AMDT.777). The amendment prohibited the general public from possessing fully-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986. Rep. William Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed the amendment late in debate and at night when most of the members of the House were gone. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a long proponent of gun control, was presiding over the House at that time and a voice vote was taken. Despite the fact that the bill appeared to fail, Rep. Rangel declared the amendment approved and it was incorporated into House Bill 4332. Once passing the House, H.R.4332 was incorporated in its entirety into S.49. The Senate passed the final S.49 on April 10, 1986 by voice vote and it was signed by the President on May 19, 1986.
Page 296! It has even been quoted by another poster here in the "poltics" section.
Wrong, nutjob! There are some seven million americans who currently can afford private insurance yet chose not to buy it...don't want the coverage...see U.S. Census stats. These people will be forced to buy coverage(against their will) under Obamacare. That's why it's called a MANDATE! Might want to actually read the fricken link before jackin' your jaw.
And DL takes down another one...
TV Doc, on the whole, you're right about the machine gun ban of 1934, HOWEVER, you failed to mention that a person ALSO had to have a "tax stamp", which NONE were printed for many years. No stamps, no machine gun, making it an effective ban. Part of that law was passed in 1968, courtesy of LBJ (the sporting clause) and it was further restricted in 1986, courtesy of Reagan.
An interesting side note:
Seems like business as usual......... the Dems sneaking some crap in, even though it wouldn't have/ didn't necessarily pass.
Really? Why bother?
To educate the uninformed like you...hurl an insult and I'll make sure one comes back at you...
To educate the uninformed like you...hurl an insult and I'll make sure one comes back at you...
Sir, please calm down and try to follow along. I'm typing very slowly, so I hope you can keep up. Under the mandates, if you CHOOSE to not get insurance, you pay a tax penalty.
It's funny to watch someone as ill-informed as you attempt to educate the masses. :rotf: :rotf:
It's funny to watch someone as ill-informed as you attempt to educate the masses. :rotf: :rotf:
To educate the uninformed like you...hurl an insult and I'll make sure one comes back at you...
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???
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:Heritage is solid...you on the other hand...meh
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??
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.
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.get over yourself
You've lost on every point and you know it...you're just too easy.
Heritage is solid...you on the other hand...meh
bkg is not saying anything defamatory so calm the **** down.
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.
I highlighted the salient point in your post. The single word that YOU chose to incorporate into your argument that proves you wrong.
get over yourself
Another brilliant statement from one who is incapable of discussing the issue. Care to comment on the topic of this thread?
Another brilliant statement from one who is incapable of discussing the issue. Care to comment on the topic of this thread?
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.
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"??The balance of my post which you quoted but did not respond to contains my answer.
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!
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.
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?
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.
Dude... really? C'mon. One could easily argue that relying on an intermediate to interpret the bill as hearsay.
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.
The balance of my post which you quoted but did not respond to contains my answer.
By what measure do you imagine yourself competent to come to this forum, insult its veteran members
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 ******* exclamation points, Francis.
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?
I understand your point, but you're missing mine.
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???
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???
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.
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.
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? :cheersmate:
I'd Hi5 you, if the button were still here.
The optional feature of YOU must be on Obamacare or pay a penalty is irrelevant to the mandate.
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!!!!"
I should have ordered Beck's book before attempting to discuss anything you. :whatever:
No...what you should have done is look up the word "mandate" to understand its correct meaning and correct usage. Here, educate yourself: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?
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.
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.
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?
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?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 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!
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)?
OK, ALL of Y'all need to knock off the insults being tossed back and forth. That is NOT a suggestion !!!!
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?
Second, leftists lying & spinning about the mandate is to be expected and rejected.
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.
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?
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.
OK, ALL of Y'all need to knock off the insults being tossed back and forth. That is NOT a suggestion !!!!He started it.
OK, ALL of Y'all need to knock off the insults being tossed back and forth. That is NOT a suggestion !!!!
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: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?
"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.
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.
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.
The part where you wrote, "leftists lying & spinning about the mandate is to be expected and rejected" without saying WHY it should be rejected.
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
Or the fact that our own Chief Justice, John Roberts, would likely rule to uphold Roe vs. Wade because of it?
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. ::)
YOU claimed above this issue which hasn't even been given "legal standing" is one step away from stare decisis. Stare decisis means the doctrine of "precedent." Since it is your claim that it is one step away from stare decisis do share with us which precedent you're talking about? Your turn.
Already covered that in another post.
Oh ok. In the future I'll make sure that instead of reading what you write
Damn, I'm so happy there's an <IGNORE> button here.
Ahhhhhhh, blessed silence.
I know what stare decisis means. Calm down long enough to pay attention.
If this law passes and it gets challenged there is a very strong likelihood that a judge could rule the "opt-out tax" (as I term the perceived liberal rebuttal to the challenge) doesn't make it a mandate. Once that ruling comes in the precedent has been set and that makes repeal of this...or any other asinine liberal "mandate" sure to follow...all the more difficult.
All we can find is you saying it's to be rejected with no reasoning as to why.
We still want to know what your reply would be to the liberal double-speak argument that the opt-out tax keeps the "mandate" from becoming a "mandate".
Damn, I'm so happy there's an <IGNORE> button here.
Ahhhhhhh, blessed silence.
The counterpoint to the lefties spin will be (1) feds unconstitutionally forcing americans for the first time to buy a product millions don't want and then economically penalizing them if they refuse. This will involve legal rangling over the Commerce Clause as well as the 10th and 14th amendments. Does this answer your question?Actually no and I'm not saying that to be a dick. Yes, I am a dick but not in this instance.
Your answer would be exactly the basis of the challenge against the mandate. We've already pre-supposed your response.
In my first post to the OP I noted that here in Colorado the government is constitutionally forbidden to raises taxes unless they hold a state-wide referendum. The shit-tards got around that by raising fees whenever they want to.
Therefore, since I and others wholly expect the liberals to deny that their mandate is a mandate I expect them to claim the opt-out fee/tax is NOT a legal penalty
t would be nice to think the 10th and 14th are our safeguards but after decades of Roe v Wade, Dred Scott, Brown vs Board of Education, Lawrence v Texas etc one should never underestimate the power of moral reletavists to bastardize language to their advantage.
Pre-suppose my response? I brought the Op-ed as my response. It clearly laid out the details, noted the legal issues and then broached the legal aspects.Either way... bkg and I accept your contention and offered our response in the voice of double-plus good lib-speak.
Either way... bkg and I accept your contention and offered our response in the voice of double-plus good lib-speak.
<snip>
I think it's wrong constitutionally, ethically and even pragmatically (if the gov't actually could hand out free shit would we really complain?...we hate socialism because it has a 100% failure rate). Alas, where we think the meddling should end is where the disconnect with gov't begins. "Consent of the governed" is in pretty poor repair these days.
Your above statements ,as written, show that you do not know what stare decisis means. That's why I defined it for you.
So why don't you use IT?