Supreme Court ObamaCare

It happened to Bush. It will happen to Obama. That's one reason we have three branches of government. The system is working.

LadyJazzer wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: But then again, is it not the United States, not the independent sovereign states of America? Is it not a critical feature of our great country and our glorious constitution that the citizens of the United States are equally afforded the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the citizens of the United States decide that they desire that all are able to receive the opportunity for emergency care, is it not their right?

Don't get him wound up again. If he can't rattle on with his drivel about "general government" and his 18th-Century bullcrap he's just not a happy camper....

Not true LJ - I'm always a happy camper, unlike some of the people who cling to their dreams of a single, central government with bitterness of an unfulfilled change they hoped for one day.

Are you a citizen of the United States Dog . . . or only one of them? I am not a citizen of New York, California, New Mexico, Texas and all of the remaining 46 States - I am a citizen of Colorado. I am not merely a resident of Colorado and a citizen of the United States in the same fashion as I am a resident of Park County and a citizen of Colorado. I am not a citizen of Park County, Park County is a wholly contained subsidiary of the State of Colorado. The State of Colorado is not a wholly contained subsidiary of the United States. Remember the diagrams of sets and subsets from your elementary education? A diagram representing the United States would not be one big set containing 50 subsets. Instead it would be 50 sets with a portion of each of those sets included in another set called the United States of America. The Constitution establishes a representative republic of coordinate governments, not a single, central government.

And no Dog, you have no right to the services of someone else, regardless of how many people desire it. To claim a right to the services of someone else places them in a state of involuntary servitude to you, which our Constitution expressly prohibits.

LadyJazzer wrote: It's too bad that the conservatives on the court were just rehashing material straight out of the teabagger blogs and letting it pass for "arguments." Even Scalia...(bless his little pointed head)...was going on about "broccoli" and the "Cornhusker Kickback"...(The only problem is that the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback" was removed from the bill before it was passed...)

But hey, don't let facts confuse you when you're on a mission... The best SCOTUS that money can buy....

If the general government can compel you to purchase health insurance by the force of its laws, can it also compel you to purchase life insurance? How about disability insurance? How about insurance to pay for your incurred debts should you default? How about an IRA or 401K? Where does this ability to force you to purchase something begin and end if it truly exists? Does it have any limits at all if only a thinly veiled reference to "general welfare" is sufficient for it to be exercised?

PrintSmith wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: But then again, is it not the United States, not the independent sovereign states of America? Is it not a critical feature of our great country and our glorious constitution that the citizens of the United States are equally afforded the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the citizens of the United States decide that they desire that all are able to receive the opportunity for emergency care, is it not their right?

Don't get him wound up again. If he can't rattle on with his drivel about "general government" and his 18th-Century bullcrap he's just not a happy camper....

Not true LJ - I'm always a happy camper, unlike some of the people who cling to their dreams of a single, central government with bitterness of an unfulfilled change they hoped for one day.

Are you a citizen of the United States Dog . . . or only one of them? I am not a citizen of New York, California, New Mexico, Texas and all of the remaining 46 States - I am a citizen of Colorado. I am not merely a resident of Colorado and a citizen of the United States in the same fashion as I am a resident of Park County and a citizen of Colorado. I am not a citizen of Park County, Park County is a wholly contained subsidiary of the State of Colorado. The State of Colorado is not a wholly contained subsidiary of the United States. Remember the diagrams of sets and subsets from your elementary education? A diagram representing the United States would not be one big set containing 50 subsets. Instead it would be 50 sets with a portion of each of those sets included in another set called the United States of America. The Constitution establishes a representative republic of coordinate governments, not a single, central government.

And no Dog, you have no right to the services of someone else, regardless of how many people desire it. To claim a right to the services of someone else places them in a state of involuntary servitude to you, which our Constitution expressly prohibits.

I am proud to be a citizen of the United States which I will be regardless of whether I am in Park County or in New York, California, New Mexico, Texas and all of the remaining 46 states. Colorado and each of the other states and territories are most definitely a subset of the United States. Remember that the Articles of Confederation were expressly replaced by the Constitution to strengthen the power of the federal government.

No one claimed that I am entitled to the services of someone else without payment to that person, despite your contortions. Instead, I was referring to the ability of the citizens of this great country to require that certain services will be available to all that require it, regardless of their ability to pay for it, despite your fervent desire that those unable to pay be forced to die on the sidewalk outside the emergency room. Luckily, the citizens of this great country do not share your desires and had their representatives enact the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986.

Yes, thank heavens, the "general welfare" trumps the sociopaths that still think that "Atlas Shrugged"-style "let 'em die" politics is the way we should live.

My contempt for those continues to grow.

So Printsmith. Why is it that you have such a "fervent desire that those unable to pay be forced to die on the sidewalk outside the emergency room"? Are you really that meanspirited or is that just someone projecting their twisted fears on you?

And while you are at it, why the hell are ALL conservatives SO mean and all liberals so loving and caring? Is it genetic or a figment of someone's imagination?

You are right about the talking points. MAN is the machine revving up for what may be a very embarrassing set back on a program that was shoved up America's ass without any KY. rofllol rofllol

lionshead2010 wrote: So Printsmith. Why is it that you have such a "fervent desire that those unable to pay be forced to die on the sidewalk outside the emergency room"? Are you really that meanspirited or is that just someone projecting their twisted fears on you?

And while you are at it, why the hell are ALL conservatives SO mean and all liberals so loving and caring? Is it genetic or a figment of someone's imagination?

You are right about the talking points. MAN is the machine revving up for what may be a very embarrassing set back on a program that was shoved up America's ass without any KY. rofllol rofllol

I was referring to earlier post by PS where he wanted to get the "government" out of mandating ER care for all regardless of their ability to pay. If hospitals were allowed to give ER care to only those who have insurance or cash in hand, where does that leave those unfortunates who are in dire need for ER care and are turned away from the ER? Luckily for those unfortunates, such compassionate conservatives such as yourself and PS were overruled by the majority of the citizens of this great country.

Of course he was also misleading in claiming that the taxpayers are required to pay for those unable to pay, when in fact those costs are shifted to those who are able to pay since there currently is no individual mandate.

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, thank heavens, the "general welfare" trumps the sociopaths that still think that "Atlas Shrugged"-style "let 'em die" politics is the way we should live.

My contempt for those continues to grow.

The general welfare didn't mean back then what it means now. I didn't see our founding fathers setting up HEW or even pay for George Washington's false teeth. But don't let history stand in the way of your delusions.

FredHayek wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, thank heavens, the "general welfare" trumps the sociopaths that still think that "Atlas Shrugged"-style "let 'em die" politics is the way we should live.

My contempt for those continues to grow.

The general welfare didn't mean back then what it means now. I didn't see our founding fathers setting up HEW or even pay for George Washington's false teeth. But don't let history stand in the way of your delusions.

Oh, so you are saying that the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution don't mean what they did back then, and all of this asinine "Sovereign Citizen"/"original intent" crap is just b.s. Thank you for admitting that. Personally, I'm GLAD that we've had 250+ years of decisions since then to expand the general welfare clause to include more citizens.

...And I wake up every day smiling, knowing that the sociopaths and "sovereign citizens" and "libertarians" and "original intent" extremists haven't got the chance of a snowball in hell of rolling back two and a half centuries of progress.

IMHO, being liberal does not make someone more compassionate. or loving and caring as lionshead put it, I believe that people who are compassionate and loving and caring embrace the liberal philosophy and reject the philosophy of the conservatives. Again, just my opinion.

Also...for those who would take us backwards in time to the last couple of centuries....good luck with that. I believe the American citizens would be reluctant to give up a few hundred years of progress.