Rob's House Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 OK - it gets overturned - they put you in charge of replacing it - what would you propose? I'd prefer nothing to the current law. Doing something is only desirable if it improves the situation, which this does not. I could go through plenty of proposals to improve health insurance (which I may do later), but it's immaterial to the point I was making. Something doesn't become constitutional just because people can't agree on the alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 OK - it gets overturned - they put you in charge of replacing it - what would you propose? Single payer only means that there is single source of payment - It would mean something like a VAT that the government collects but the options on how that gets spent could be numerous. It could be a voucher given to people for them to spend on how they see fit - or spend in a defined manner - or it could be spent by the govt on insurance. Universal is more like Medicaire for everyone. Medicare for all would be a Single Payor, not a Universal System. Medicare doesn't own any MD or facitlites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) If you understand anything about politics you should understand why it makes a difference who drafts a bill and who gets to vote yes or no on it. The fact that this bill was strategically originated in the body less accountable to the people and only made it through by the slimmest of margins and only on account of political bribery that would be punishable by imprisonment if done in the public sector is what demonstrates clearly that this is the type of maneuvering that provision was meant to prevent. Plus, of all the schools of thought regarding constitutional interpretation, I've yet to hear of one that calls for the blatant disregard of express, unambiguous provisions on the grounds that it really doesn't seem that important. Important to note that the bill was unamendable by the House given that with Scott Brown's victory, in Massachsetts of all places, campaigning almost exclusively against the ACA, with 41 "No" votes the bill would not be fillibuster proof in the Senate. The bill was written entirely by the Senate Health and Finance Committees. The House of the People had litterally zero input as to what would be included in the bill, which is why the bill received bi-partisain opposition in the House. The Constitution was written as it was to expressly prevent this type of shennanigans. Edited May 6, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 It was passed on purely partisan lines in an underhanded and unconstitutional manner. Tasker is sticking up for the rule of law, while you are cavalierly pushing for the rule of man. Oh no! It passed along partisan lines, clearly unconstitutional! Lol, no, it passed both houses of congress, it was fine. If you understand anything about politics you should understand why it makes a difference who drafts a bill and who gets to vote yes or no on it. The fact that this bill was strategically originated in the body less accountable to the people and only made it through by the slimmest of margins and only on account of political bribery that would be punishable by imprisonment if done in the public sector is what demonstrates clearly that this is the type of maneuvering that provision was meant to prevent. Plus, of all the schools of thought regarding constitutional interpretation, I've yet to hear of one that calls for the blatant disregard of express, unambiguous provisions on the grounds that it really doesn't seem that important. It passed both houses, doesn't matter the margin. You guys are trying to heap partisan passage, slim margins, blah blah, whatever. It also passed the supreme court and a the executive signed it. It's law, it's working and it's wonderful!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Oh no! It passed along partisan lines, clearly unconstitutional! Lol, no, it passed both houses of congress, it was fine. Any other Constititutional provisions that should simply be done away with because they are politically inconvenient? If we've fallen to the point where the Constitution not only no longer guides what sorts of law can be made, but actually no longer guides the process by which they are made then the document is meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) Oh no! It passed along partisan lines, clearly unconstitutional! Lol, no, it passed both houses of congress, it was fine. It passed both houses, doesn't matter the margin. You guys are trying to heap partisan passage, slim margins, blah blah, whatever. It also passed the supreme court and a the executive signed it. It's law, it's working and it's wonderful!!! Any responsible President knowing that the changes to be implemented are very large in scope and will effect nearly every citizen would have told Congress in advance that he would only sign something with broad support from both parties. Instead we have something that is proving to be unpopular and will ultimately be a political burden on Democrats rather than a political victory. That this thing was poorly crafted, would overall raise health care costs, would add to the deficit and inflict pain on employers and consumers was one of the most telegraphed outcomes that I can recall. Edited May 5, 2014 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Any other Constititutional provisions that should simply be done away with because they are politically inconvenient? If we've fallen to the point where the Constitution not only no longer guides what sorts of law can be made, but actually no longer guides the process by which they are made then the document is meaningless. Change you can believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Any other Constititutional provisions that should simply be done away with because they are politically inconvenient? If we've fallen to the point where the Constitution not only no longer guides what sorts of law can be made, but actually no longer guides the process by which they are made then the document is meaningless. I asked you for ANY tangible, measurable and/or concrete reasons this law passed by both houses of congress has hurt anyone because of the way it was passed. You are now saying we have no constitution because of it? The law is over? Come on. If the house didn't like it they could have simply not voted for it, period Any responsible President knowing that the changes to be implemented are very large in scope and will effect nearly every citizen would have told Congress in advance that he would only sign something with broad support from both parties. Instead we have something that is proving to be unpopular and will ultimately be a political burden on Democrats rather than a political victory. That this thing was poorly crafted, would overall raise health care costs, would add to the deficit and inflict pain on employers and consumers was one of the most telegraphed outcomes that I can recall. Broad support from both parties? Obama is a black guy, he'd never get any support from Republicans for anything. Have you not been paying attention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 I asked you for ANY tangible, measurable and/or concrete reasons this law passed by both houses of congress has hurt anyone because of the way it was passed. You are now saying we have no constitution because of it? The law is over? Come on. If the house didn't like it they could have simply not voted for it, period Broad support from both parties? Obama is a black guy, he'd never get any support from Republicans for anything. Have you not been paying attention? Against with the race card. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-republicans-more-racist-than-white-democrats/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 I asked you for ANY tangible, measurable and/or concrete reasons this law passed by both houses of congress has hurt anyone because of the way it was passed. You are now saying we have no constitution because of it? The law is over? Come on. If the house didn't like it they could have simply not voted for it, period. As I noted above, it was passed in this unConstitutional manner, because had it been attempted Constitutionally, it would not have passed. Do you dispute the timeline? Do you dispute that the law was "passed" in violation of all precedent, and in violation of our High Law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 As I noted above, it was passed in this unConstitutional manner, because had it been attempted Constitutionally, it would not have passed. Do you dispute the timeline? Do you dispute that the law was "passed" in violation of all precedent, and in violation of our High Law? So both houses of congress voted on it right? And it was signed by the president, right? I see that as constitutional. If the house thought something was wrong they could have simply voted against it, but they didn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 So both houses of congress voted on it right? And it was signed by the president, right? I see that as constitutional. If the house thought something was wrong they could have simply voted against it, but they didn't Where does the Constitution stipulate that bills must originate? If a bill doesn't originate in the House, as the Constitution stipulates, then it is unConstitutional, by definition. Saying that the bill passed both houses of Congress does not create a Constitutional exemption. If you believe it does, explain the legal precedent, or cite the Constitutional provision that allows it. I'll wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 The bill originally passed the House because it was a completely different bill involving the first-time homebuyer's credit for the Armed Forces and other federal employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Where does the Constitution stipulate that bills must originate? If a bill doesn't originate in the House, as the Constitution stipulates, then it is unConstitutional, by definition. Saying that the bill passed both houses of Congress does not create a Constitutional exemption. If you believe it does, explain the legal precedent, or cite the Constitutional provision that allows it. I'll wait. Cite the Constitution? Let's start at his level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 The bill originally passed the House because it was a completely different bill involving the first-time homebuyer's credit for the Armed Forces and other federal employees. And it was amended! Constitutional! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 I asked you for ANY tangible, measurable and/or concrete reasons this law passed by both houses of congress has hurt anyone because of the way it was passed. You are now saying we have no constitution because of it? The law is over? Come on. If the house didn't like it they could have simply not voted for it, period Broad support from both parties? Obama is a black guy, he'd never get any support from Republicans for anything. Have you not been paying attention? Stop playing the race card. It's obvious that you aren't intelligent enough to understand that people can stand on principle and be for or against someone because of their policies and agenda. You've taken this race crusade about as far as you should. Stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Where does the Constitution stipulate that bills must originate? If a bill doesn't originate in the House, as the Constitution stipulates, then it is unConstitutional, by definition. Saying that the bill passed both houses of Congress does not create a Constitutional exemption. If you believe it does, explain the legal precedent, or cite the Constitutional provision that allows it. I'll wait. Technically you sort of have a point, but technically it was an amended bill. The judicial branch won't start telling the legislative branch how to create laws, and they shouldn't. So you got nothing. Enjoy your outrage over is "unconstitutional" law and the end of civilization as you see it Stop playing the race card. It's obvious that you aren't intelligent enough to understand that people can stand on principle and be for or against someone because of their policies and agenda. You've taken this race crusade about as far as you should. Stop it. Principle? When George Bush wanted to expand health care with the prescription drug law where was the kkk tea party? Gees, a black president wanted to fix the health care mess and every white conservative nut bag went howling to high heaven. Doesn't take a Duck Dynasty, Rancher Bundy or Clippers owner to see what was happening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 And it was amended! Constitutional! Sorry but removing all but the first sentence isn't amending. It's re-writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Technically you sort of have a point, but technically it was an amended bill. The judicial branch won't start telling the legislative branch how to create laws, and they shouldn't. So you got nothing. Enjoy your outrage over is "unconstitutional" law and the end of civilization as you see it Principle? When George Bush wanted to expand health care with the prescription drug law where was the kkk tea party? Gees, a black president wanted to fix the health care mess and every white conservative nut bag went howling to high heaven. Doesn't take a Duck Dynasty, Rancher Bundy or Clippers owner to see what was happening Stop crusading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Sorry but removing all but the first sentence isn't amending. It's re-writing. No, that's amending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts