[bethere]

Originally Posted by DGUtley

And isn't there a little bit of you that wonders whether was last week just for show?

the problem is i already feel totally comfortable in my evaluation of alito thomas and scallia. i believe all three to be total hack federalist society wannabees.

but we'll see about roberts.

thomas has absolutely no business voting on this case.

as for last week? we'll see.

again. roberts is already on board with stare decisis and mccollogh v. maryland. so, i would have no problem impeaching him for having lied to congress if he tries to overturn any of this based on the notion that the ICC is inapplicable. he has personally admitted that the cat left this bag 240 years ago.

[DGUtley]

If Thomas has no business, then you'd have to acknowledge that the former Obama lawyer, Kagan, shouldn't vote either.

[bethere]

Originally Posted by DGUtley

If Thomas has no business, then you'd have to acknowledge that the former Obama lawyer, Kagan, shouldn't vote either.

correct.

[DGUtley]

So that injustice is a wash then.

[bethere]

Originally Posted by DGUtley

So that injustice is a wash then.

... in theory, although i will say that i didn't lead with it.

[majorspark]

Originally Posted by o.a.b.

Harry Truman [ I believe ] made the proposal to stave off inflationary wages.Until that time,no group coverage was offered to the masses.

Employer benefit plans proliferated in the 1940's. Government imposed wage freezes on employers during WWII laid the foundation for employer provided health care. Employers unable by law to attract workers by paying more, instead were allowed to improve their benefit packages by adding health care. The IRS in 1943 ruled that employer based health care should be tax free. Further incentivizing "encouraged" more and more employers to get in the act.

Since federal government actions caused health care to become a responsibility of the employer, federal government action unfortunately is needed to correct the problem it fostered. Not as an opportunity for the feds to grab it for themselves, but to put policy in place that allows it to be transferred to the states and the people's responsibility.

Originally Posted by o.a.b.

Do you know of any employer in business for " the benefits " ? NOR ARE most Americans !! We go to work to be profitable--for our employer and ourselves.

Employers absolutely should not be in the insurance business. They should do what they do best, manufacturing a good or providing a service to their customers while making a profit off those goods and services. Period.

[fish82]

Originally Posted by jimmacqueen

A great piece on the benefits many people would lose immediately once the health care act is repealed.

I'm interested in knowing which of these you would like to see stripped away.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1400009.html

If you didn't want them stripped away, then you people probably shouldn't have included them in an unconstitutional law. :rolleyes:

[DGUtley]

Originally Posted by majorspark

Employer benefit plans proliferated in the 1940's. Government imposed wage freezes on employers during WWII laid the foundation for employer provided health care. Employers unable by law to attract workers by paying more, instead were allowed to improve their benefit packages by adding health care. The IRS in 1943 ruled that employer based health care should be tax free. Further incentivizing "encouraged" more and more employers to get in the act.

Since federal government actions caused health care to become a responsibility of the employer, federal government action unfortunately is needed to correct the problem it fostered. Not as an opportunity for the feds to grab it for themselves, but to put policy in place that allows it to be transferred to the states and the people's responsibility.

Thank you, that was very informative.

[docthehun]

Originally Posted by DGUtley

Thank you, that was very informative.

There you go!

[jimmacqueen]

Originally Posted by centerback

I think the government should make everyone get a job and pay their bills.

I think the government should GIVE everyone a job so they can pay their bills, and provide food, clothing, shelter, and health care while they're at it.

And outlaw organized religion, too.

Go ahead...call me a communist, even though it's not true.

[jimmacqueen]

Originally Posted by bethere

we used your idea. your court--if it overturns the affordable care act--will be over turning YOUR idea.

don't pretend that it wasn't YOUR idea, because OUR idea is single-payer...

as for your constitutional question? the answer is 'the interstate commerce clause.'

These are indeed the correct answers.

[DGUtley]

Originally Posted by jimmacqueen

I think the government should GIVE everyone a job so they can pay their bills, and provide food, clothing, shelter, and health care while they're at it. And outlaw organized religion, too. Go ahead...call me a communist, even though it's not true.

I don't know whether you are serious or not; but where's the "government" going to get the money to pay everybody for their "job" and to finance food, clothing, shelter and health care? You realize that eventually there's no more money left if the government does that, right? Isn't that what the Soviet Union did? And then what?

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by DGUtley

I don't know whether you are serious or not; but where's the "government" going to get the money to pay everybody for their "job" and to finance food, clothing, shelter and health care? You realize that eventually there's no more money left if the government does that, right? Isn't that what the Soviet Union did? And then what?

The rich. Taking from the rich will solve all our problems and everyone will have free food, free shelter, free healthcare..and a standard of living no better than Zimbabwe.

[DGUtley]

Originally Posted by sleeper

The rich. Taking from the rich will solve all our problems and everyone will have free food, free shelter, free healthcare..and a standard of living no better than Zimbabwe.

Yes, I know that's their tactic, the evil "rich" -- but eventually it's all gone. They don't see that, or they don't care. Once everybody has been reduced to their particular economic level then they'll be satisfied? Kumbaya?

[Wingman3]

Originally Posted by jimmacqueen

I think the government should GIVE everyone a job so they can pay their bills, and provide food, clothing, shelter, and health care while they're at it.

And outlaw organized religion, too.

Go ahead...call me a communist, even though it's not true.

If the government is going to do that then why would we have to work if they're already going to take care of my most basic needs? Aren't they already providing for a large number of people with food (stamps), shelter (subsidized housing) and health care (Medicaid)? Where is the money coming from to pay for those things? Who's going to pay for them when more people just give up? Then more people give up, then more, then more. China and other countries won't keep buying the issued bonds if no one is working and creating anything of value for the government to collect taxes from to pay for these things. We would become the largest banana republic.

Why should we stop at just the necessities, the government should provide me with a boat and gas to power the boat. I want them to also provide me with 4-wheelers and snow mobiles, fishing rods, cars, internet access and cell phone service.

Can we just look at other models of government 'efficiency' to see that the government shouldn't be doing anything more than what they are required to do? How about AmTrack? Government housing? Government food? THE POSTAL SERVICE! For crying out loud they're required to have a postal service and that is gushing money out they only way to fix it would be to change the serivce. They could have mail 1 day a week, I don't think anywhere in the Constitution it says that mail has to be a 6 day a week service. Not to mention many other government services that are provided by local governments that are losing money that force residents to have to pass levies and new tax increases just to maintain their current services.

[Wingman3]

Originally Posted by DGUtley

Yes, I know that's their tactic, the evil "rich" -- but eventually it's all gone. They don't see that, or they don't care. Once everybody has been reduced to their particular economic level then they'll be satisfied? Kumbaya?

No no, once everyone is BELOW their economic level they'll be satisfied because they'll be the rich and then they'll try to keep us all in the poor house. You can look at many countries around the world to see what could and can happen. I'm not saying we don't have our problems with government or that it isn't corrupt but it will become more corrupt as those that were voted in try to maintain their power by whatever means necessary.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by DGUtley

Yes, I know that's their tactic, the evil "rich" -- but eventually it's all gone. They don't see that, or they don't care. Once everybody has been reduced to their particular economic level then they'll be satisfied? Kumbaya?

Agreed. The thing is, there will always be rich people in this country. The mentality that if someone has more than you, they are rich and should pay more will always be a driving force for those who don't understand the capitalistic system(which is really almost everyone). Socialism is all gravy unless you want innovation and a greater standard of living. I'd prefer to live in a world where I can make my own decisions with my money, achieve a higher standard of living, and have freedom to do whatever I want with my life as long as I don't hurt anyone else. Apparently, people think the government should control our lives, which is the path that Jimmacqueen and other communists want to go down.

[jimmacqueen]

Originally Posted by Wingman3

If the government is going to do that then why would we have to work if they're already going to take care of my most basic needs? Aren't they already providing for a large number of people with food (stamps), shelter (subsidized housing) and health care (Medicaid)? Where is the money coming from to pay for those things? Who's going to pay for them when more people just give up? Then more people give up, then more, then more. China and other countries won't keep buying the issued bonds if no one is working and creating anything of value for the government to collect taxes from to pay for these things. We would become the largest banana republic.

Why should we stop at just the necessities, the government should provide me with a boat and gas to power the boat. I want them to also provide me with 4-wheelers and snow mobiles, fishing rods, cars, internet access and cell phone service.

Can we just look at other models of government 'efficiency' to see that the government shouldn't be doing anything more than what they are required to do? How about AmTrack? Government housing? Government food? THE POSTAL SERVICE! For crying out loud they're required to have a postal service and that is gushing money out they only way to fix it would be to change the serivce. They could have mail 1 day a week, I don't think anywhere in the Constitution it says that mail has to be a 6 day a week service. Not to mention many other government services that are provided by local governments that are losing money that force residents to have to pass levies and new tax increases just to maintain their current services.

Nope...not one red cent beyond the necessities. And, if you don't work, you don't get anything (excepting the disabled, of course). Who this really hurts are the curious, the ambitious, the scientists and best educated people. They would have to rely on their own ambition to go beyond the basics.

And, anyone who wants a car (individual transportation module since I would outlaw gas-powered cars), boat, a cell phone, a TV, entertainment, sports, etc., will have to work at something more than tending the cotton fields!

I envision something much closer to the current Chinese system. It's working pretty well there, and in Poland, Turkey, etc.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by jimmacqueen

Nope...not one red cent beyond the necessities. And, if you don't work, you don't get anything (excepting the disabled, of course). Who this really hurts are the curious, the ambitious, the scientists and best educated people. They would have to rely on their own ambition to go beyond the basics.

And, anyone who wants a car (individual transportation module since I would outlaw gas-powered cars), boat, a cell phone, a TV, entertainment, sports, etc., will have to work at something more than tending the cotton fields!

I envision something much closer to the current Chinese system. It's working pretty well there, and in Poland, Turkey, etc.

LOL what? You are completely delusional. If you want to give people the basic necessities, donate your own money to charities that support people in need. We don't need the government to do this.

[docthehun]

Originally Posted by jimmacqueen

Nope...not one red cent beyond the necessities. And, if you don't work, you don't get anything (excepting the disabled, of course). Who this really hurts are the curious, the ambitious, the scientists and best educated people. They would have to rely on their own ambition to go beyond the basics.

And, anyone who wants a car (individual transportation module since I would outlaw gas-powered cars), boat, a cell phone, a TV, entertainment, sports, etc., will have to work at something more than tending the cotton fields!

I envision something much closer to the current Chinese system. It's working pretty well there, and in Poland, Turkey, etc.

After all this time, the average Chinese has a standard of living 1/10th that of the average Mexican. Yea, that system works really well!