nostyle126 Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 Wouldn't it be better if WE got to decide where OUR money goes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in CA Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 Actually, it's completely relevant, since a "penalty" levied by Congress violates Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. Thanks for the link, though...I was having trouble finding that. I meant the distinction is irrelevant for the sake of the government's argument that the tax/penalty is supported by the General Welfare Clause, based on their interpretation of the controlling case law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 I meant the distinction is irrelevant for the sake of the government's argument that the tax/penalty is supported by the Constitution. Yeah, that makes sense...since a tax is supported by the Constitution but a penalty isn't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in CA Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 Yeah, that makes sense...since a tax is supported by the Constitution but a penalty isn't... Hey, I'm not sayin it makes sense, I'm just recounting the government's argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 LOL! What do you think this whole Health Care Deform will lead to, among the Medicaid and Medicare populations? I know that "death panels" got peoples' panties into a bunch, but that's pretty much what will happen. And the sick and poor have never been denied access to health care, at least by the government. By private insurers, sure, but no one said that there weren't needed reforms in the private health care industry, No, in 2003 the Republicans in the House proposed a bill that had a line that said something close to "In the case that any citizen contracts cancer and earns less than $10,000 per year, that citizen is to be put to death". It was written by a few lobbyists from United Heath Insurance but never got out of committee hearings. So as you can see, the Republicans do have a bit of an obsession with death panels. Who are you kidding? You will never fall under the tax bracket that would have to pay for this. And yes, repeal it and replace it with deathcamps. That's the plan, deny health care facilities for all lower income people. Looks like you're !@#$ed. Well it's not like the Republicans ever came up with a plan. They had at least 6 years under Bush to come up with something. They didn't even try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 You're a complete !@#$ing moron. The "tax/penalty" goes into the fund that subsidizes people's health insurance purchases from insurance companies. Ultimately, the money goes to private entities. Mandatory insurance my money would go directly to a private insurance company, then insurance companies pay for my medical care. With Universal HC my money goes to the Federal gov't, and the Federal Gov't pays for my medical care (and the health insurance industry ceases to exist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 No, in 2003 the Republicans in the House proposed a bill that had a line that said something close to "In the case that any citizen contracts cancer and earns less than $10,000 per year, that citizen is to be put to death". It was written by a few lobbyists from United Heath Insurance but never got out of committee hearings. Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 No, in 2003 the Republicans in the House proposed a bill that had a line that said something close to "In the case that any citizen contracts cancer and earns less than $10,000 per year, that citizen is to be put to death". Link? My thoughts exactly. House bills are a matter of public record. Conner does love to post links so now is his time to shine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 Relax. New Shimmer is a floor wax AND a dessert topping. "Tastes great." "And just look at that shine." Classic SNL. One of my favorites besides puppy uppers & doggie downers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 Replace it with what? Mandatory death camps for sick poor people. If anyone under a certain wealth level gets sick at all they get sent to be killed? Republicans have no interest in anything that does not put more money in the pockets of the already wealthy. Generalize much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 Link? My thoughts exactly. House bills are a matter of public record. Conner does love to post links so now is his time to shine You guys beat me to it. Not that something that didn't even make it out of committee has any relevance to anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 19, 2010 Author Share Posted July 19, 2010 I understand the concept that some government provisions be available for truly unemployable indigents such as the mentally retarded and physically disabled. I would, however, like someone like Conner to explain exactly to what extent should I be obligated, under threat of imprisonment, to provide resources for others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 No, in 2003 the Republicans in the House proposed a bill that had a line that said something close to "In the case that any citizen contracts cancer and earns less than $10,000 per year, that citizen is to be put to death". It was written by a few lobbyists from United Heath Insurance but never got out of committee hearings. So as you can see, the Republicans do have a bit of an obsession with death panels. Conner......this sounds like the same "conspiracy" crap you keep accusing others of. Is there any shred of evidence regarding this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 I understand the concept that some government provisions be available for truly unemployable indigents such as the mentally retarded and physically disabled. I would, however, like someone like Conner to explain exactly to what extent should I be obligated, under threat of imprisonment, to provide resources for others? Becauuuuuuse....... YOU gots the money. It really is that simple. The good news, I suppose, is that if they take enough resources from you, you will eventually become one of the others. Cripes, this is beginning to sound like a LOST thread. Oh....BTW.....I am not "someone like Conner"......JFTR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 I would, however, like someone like Conner to explain exactly to what extent should I be obligated, under threat of imprisonment, to provide resources for others? Ok, just to preface what I am about to say, I am not someone like Conner, but the answer is: Always, because the narrative always applies and never changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 Link? Link? My thoughts exactly. House bills are a matter of public record. Conner does love to post links so now is his time to shine You guys beat me to it. Not that something that didn't even make it out of committee has any relevance to anything. Conner......this sounds like the same "conspiracy" crap you keep accusing others of. Is there any shred of evidence regarding this? You know, as I fabricated that paragraph, I tried to be as absolutely ridiculous as possible. "I'm sure they'll see my sarcasm, except Doc, he'll believe anything" I said to myself. My paragraph has as much truth to it as anything that Doc has said in this thread. ... but none of you call him out. Why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 You know, as I fabricated that paragraph, I tried to be as absolutely ridiculous as possible. "I'm sure they'll see my sarcasm" I said to myself. My paragraph has as much truth to it as anything the Doc has said in this thread. ... but none of you call him out. Why is that? Because we like him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 Because we like him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 I should change my username to "auto-wrong" or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 I should change my username to "auto-wrong" or something No point. You've already made "conner" synonymous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts