|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 2, 2011, 04:26 PM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 10, 2010
Posts: 166
|
I take exception to this as a member who on a day to day basis served this country and put my life on the line more times than I care to remember.
I will however refrain from stating a few facts and leave this alone. Let me simply say without every member of the military you would not be free and you would not be enjoying the freedoms you currently have. I leave it at that. Possibly under the commerce clause you should seek to hire some corporate force to protect you from the evils of this world. Best of luck ________________________________________________________________ This has nothing to do of the people that fight the wars I was once one, we only do what we are told. The wars of the last 30 years have nothing to do with the freedom of the people of the USA. They have to do with corporate interests costing the taxpayers trillions of hard earned money and the lives of some very good men and women. |
February 2, 2011, 04:33 PM | #77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Sorry I wont touch that one and now back to the commerce clause and a better discussion.
__________________
Molon Labe |
February 2, 2011, 04:42 PM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,733
|
Jimjc, did I say screw everyone? No.
Did I say look to solve the problems for those who truly need help? Yes. Did you say that very very few people could afford care here? Yes. Is that statement factually incorrect? Incontravertiby. You had your issues cared for as do the vast majority of Americans but you seem to think very very few (your words) people can afford care here while very very few really cannot. If you think there is not a group of citizens who are stupid, lazy and shortsighted then you aren't looking hard. I would love to introduce you to my father in law who we are all footing the bill for. His utter laziness and incompetence left his family without private coverage when my wife and her brother were not even out of elementry school. Somehow though "the system" took care of them. They should be cared for. He should rot. "Massive growth of the Federal Government. Decades ago corporations paid 65% of the taxes now the people pay almost 65% of the taxes." So you propose growing the gov't further and giving them the say over what medical care you are allowed to have? You also seem to ignore the significant liability cost our out of control legal system has on medical care. Nobody pushing this "reform" cares to address that. I know though how it will be handled. Once gov't dictates and manages all care it will also see fit to hold itself unnacountable for any of it's errors. Ask members of the military what recourse their families have should a military doctor kill them through outright incompetence. Absolutely NONE. That is what we would all have. A bloated, inefficient, gov't run system giving minimal level care and with zero accountability. The second part is the most telling though. CORPORATIONS PAY NO TAXES EVER!!! Any tax on a corporation always falls back on the private citizen to pay through higher prices. You are under the misconception that one can tax corporations in order to make a nations fiscal policy solvent. Every tax always lands on the citizenry.
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin |
February 2, 2011, 05:02 PM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Come on guys I really dont want to have this thread closed because its run off the track so to speak. I think all of us have some strong opinion but operating within the rules given in this forum we are very close to the edge of the cliff if not falling off the cliff.
I truly think there is value in this thread so please help me put this back on track.
__________________
Molon Labe |
February 2, 2011, 05:39 PM | #80 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Quote:
The commerce clause is not a social program mechanism it is a commerce mechanism. I am constantly astonished by our reps of all parties who are in majority professional lawyers who seem to mis interpet or fail to recognize any limits to there powers to legislate anything. Maybe the best thing we could do would be to remove the commerce clause from the constitution and give our reps something to think about when they challenge the rights of the people to be free.
__________________
Molon Labe |
|
February 2, 2011, 06:16 PM | #81 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
So far, I see none. The compulsion for a government takeover of health care is supposedly just as you say... yet, I see not these people. Where are they? Where are the millions, or hundreds of thousands, who go without care? Does the government take over an entire national system because of a tiny fractional minority?
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
February 2, 2011, 06:26 PM | #82 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Regardless of how one feels about this particular debate, IMHO the existing mandate fails the constitutional test because it is neither a tax nor a spending program in the truest sense. Congress is using the Commerce Clause to justify requiring private citizens to buy a product from a commercial provider. The degree to which this idea generally benefits the welfare of the citizenry is irrelevant. Quote:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
||
February 2, 2011, 08:48 PM | #83 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Chris, we probably do fall on different sides, of that issue. I tend to relate to what Justice Story wrote on what the Constitution means. He was the closest to that era, afterall.
I do however, agree that the mandate fails the commerce clause test. I also agree with Judge Vinson's view that while the law in question (the mandate) may be necessary to the whole of the legislation, it is not proper. As stated, it must be both. But then, as I said back in 2005 (Gonzales v. Raich-->here), the Congress now has near absolute power to regulate anything. This legislation will go to SCOTUS (which of the current 4 cases has yet to be determined). I suspect the same shenanigans that ensued between Raich and the almost immediate Oregon (assisted suicide - same year, same arguments, different results) case. You may remember them. |
February 2, 2011, 09:29 PM | #84 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
Quote:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...alth-coverage/ Quote:
Quote:
According to this 2004 study annual uncompensated costs are 40.7 billion. That's a big enough amount to effect commerce. These numbers should be common knowledge but the media is more interested in the horse race. So basically there are things which aren't in the constitution but are constitutional. There are various legal justifications. One of them is compelling national interest. |
|||
February 2, 2011, 10:38 PM | #85 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Quote:
|
|
February 2, 2011, 10:44 PM | #86 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
The question is not if they die from lack of care but WHY they lack care.
No one in this nation is denied care. If they choose to not get care for financial reasons, they are making a personal choice... the wrong one in my opinion, but a personal choice. People are free to chose dying over debt or debt over dying. Debt gets bad enough, there's bankruptcy. Dead is final.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
February 2, 2011, 11:37 PM | #87 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
On a side note one might not have to think so much about this commerce clause if there were simple constitutionally mandated tax maximums with no loop holes, a nice 12 or 15% flat tax across the board and no matter what you cant exceed it.
Not to get to far off into the grass but I often wonder at what point does taxation exceed some unwritten constitutional limit as tax at some point makes it impossible to support yourself and your family. Ah where is that dang crystal ball.... Anyway our reps must have limits on this Commerce Clause which is seen by many is the biggest power grab clause used by our reps of all the available articles. This is a article so overused and abused and exceed to the extreme that it needs planetary size liposuction.
__________________
Molon Labe |
February 3, 2011, 12:11 AM | #88 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
Quote:
Should we have a constitutional amendment making murder a federal offense? |
|
February 3, 2011, 12:24 AM | #89 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2009
Posts: 236
|
Unfortunately it is not logic that operates in the country today. Its right vs left using the people as pawns. The idiots who can't think for themselves latch on to some party philosophy and hold on like pitbulls give their mental faculty leave. They get fired up and support things that are in fact a really bad idea for them. All the while the fat cats amass more empowered by the same confused suffering citizenly.
There is no integrity left anymore. The Judiciary is not in fact independent and without predudice. Welcome to 21 st century America. Parties twist facts and lie to the mostly intellectually lazy crowds and tell them what to think. Its almost comical if it wasn't so sad. We are all mostly just pawns in a grand game of right vs left, and fact is no one really truly has your best interests at heart. They are all mostly interested in themselves. Oh wait, what patriotism? It doesn't exist anymore. Maybe in our imagination only. They all mostly look on and acquiesce as other countries take a bite out of our lunch, just as long as it lines their pockets first. :barf: The judiciary picks sides according to their allegiance and interprete law according. Folks this is a fixed fight, and the looser are you. Regardless of what side any of us is on, why are the American made drugs X3 and X2 more expensive here than in Mexico and Canada respectively? It should be immoral. What happened to country first? Who is really controlling this healthcare saga really? Its all about benefiting the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals who buy the gov wholesale, but both parties are just dancing so hard not to look like they are with the companies and not the people. Way I see this, is government for the lobbyists by lobbyists for their corporate benefactors. The people are just cheering or mostly jeering $$$. So constitutional or not, I really don't care because its a fixed orchestrated outcome, and regardless of what happens in the end, its not about us, but about who gets the $$$. Last edited by dec41971; February 3, 2011 at 12:29 AM. |
February 3, 2011, 12:51 AM | #90 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Most people don't have health insurance because they can't get it through work or because they lost there job. Getting on unemployment doesn't mean you get free health care. Quote:
Further because they waited to seek care they likely have a condition that could have been treated early and cheaply if it had been caught earlier. So you end up paying more. Lets look at the debt side of your equation. If someone makes $10 an hour full time, how much debt can they carry? They will still need health care if they reach the point where lenders no longer extend them credit. They will still need health care after declaring bankruptcy. Pete give me one citation that indicates people only lack health insurance because of choice. Give me one citation showing that no one is refused health insurance. If you haven't look out the window lately; many many people are unemployed, many more are under employed, tens of thousand of people are losing their homes, the economy is not sparkly and the price of health insurance and health care are rising every day. To say people don't have health insurance out of choice ignores what's happening in the world out side. |
|||||
February 3, 2011, 04:39 AM | #91 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
|
Two tiered system
Okay Buzzcook, heres what I'll do. Medicare for all, every person who works and/or files a Federal income tax return, will pay an additional FICA type tax for universal Medicare. Every citizen will then be able to access this care.
However, private, ultra high quality Medical care will still be available to those who can afford to pay for it outright, or purchase additional private insurance to cover it. No whining about not being able to afford the deluxe care.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (>_<) |
February 3, 2011, 06:31 AM | #92 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
Quote:
There was a consensus from both sides that this had never been done before. There was a split over whether it could be done now. One constant example thru the debate was "if Congress decides it is in the best interest of the program and citizens, that every citizen be mandated to purchase a gym membership and 4 servings of leafy vegetables per day, will those be a logical, acceptable step after mandating they purchase insurance". Careful what you wish for. FICA, now there's a well run program, definately want them in charge of the money.
__________________
Quote:
|
||
February 3, 2011, 06:52 AM | #93 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,733
|
I just can't understand why:
1. So many people feel it is up to gov't tho solve their problems. 2. Those who do feel it is up to gov't then default straight to the federal gov't and completely ignore the states.
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin |
February 3, 2011, 06:57 AM | #94 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
One phrase that was thrown about repeatedly during the debate last night from both sides was 'The End of Federalism'. Something to ponder.
Aw heck, just chuck it.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
February 3, 2011, 07:54 AM | #95 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
1. Government is there to solve problems in the first place. All governments.
2. We have problems that we can't solve all by ourselves; we have problems that are bigger than we are. Sure, we might have roads without government but they'd all be toll roads. 3. State govenments, which existed a long time before the federal government, have proved they are not always willing to solve problems and, by themselves, are unable to do everything. Why do you think there is even a national government at all? Is there a justification for even having a federal government? If you don't want a powerful federal government, we may as well not have one at all. One can easily question virtually everything (any) government does and there is usually someone who does. Why have public schools? Why have public roads? Why have a defense department? Isn't the national guard enough? The defense department gets most of our borrowed money anyway.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
February 3, 2011, 08:40 AM | #96 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
Quote:
But I will say that I need to go balance my checkbook, and turn on the tube to see the Egypt governmental news. Off to work to pay my FICA. Good day, and good luck!
__________________
Quote:
|
||
February 3, 2011, 08:58 AM | #97 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,733
|
Unless the problem is another government's army attacking your nation most governments more often cause the problems than solve them. The only other problem I see them being involved in is a basic criminal law structure which needs to be enforced.
Do you know that toll roads would be worse? If the tax burden were removes and a rolling toll system implemented would that really be a disaster? I have a problem when the default answer to every problem is the government. So did the architects of this nation. So because the state governments don't always solve the problems you feel need addressing by gov't correctly you believe escalating the problem to a federal gov't even further from the people and accountability is better? Seriously, how many problems get better when more gov't is thrown at it? That is a big reason our COTUS has specific limitations on Federal power which is also the heart of this discussion. Many of our states have more resources available than many nations. It is utter nonsense to say they are incapable of addressing something like healthcare. The truth is that several have and found out gov't sucks at it. That is the great experiment. States can try for themselves, watch each other and decide what is best. Instead though we have a movement to rip that duty away from the states and solve it with bigger gov't which is even more inundated with the agendas and special interests those pushing this beast claim to despise.
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin |
February 3, 2011, 10:05 AM | #98 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
The so-called founding fathers experimented with a different form of national government for ten years and decided that a strong national government was a better idea.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
February 3, 2011, 11:01 AM | #99 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
One problem with using roads as an example is that they're a much clearer example of what the Commerce Clause is really intended for. Public roads have an obvious and direct relationship to interstate commerce. Same goes for the laws declaring that all navigable waterways are public, and laws declaring that aircraft can operate freely over private land without needing permission in most cases.
Quote:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
February 3, 2011, 11:32 AM | #100 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Not so.... The national government need only be strong ENOUGH. One of the greatest fears of the founders was a too strong national government. The national government should have very little influence on the daily lives of individuals. They exist to protect the country from outside forces, negotiate on behalf of the states as a whole with foreign powers and (REASONABLY!) regulate interstate commerce. The commerce clause is the single most abused power in American history.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|