New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Prediction

Z

zzigzzag

Guest
It will come down to the interpretation of Article One, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States"

Like every SC debate, it will be a matter of definitions. One side will argue that "general welfare" means "what's best for everyone". The other will argue that it doesn't really mean what it says....that "general welfare" actually means, "we're better off trusting the trickle down theory than doing the math over the long term."
 
As someone noted this morning, it also comes down to seeing a few of the conservative Justices....contradict themselves. Particularly Scalia who granted BROAD powers under the "commerce clause" to Congress, in 2005.

Mind you, he LIKED the Congress in 2005 more than the one in 2009.
 
I think it would be damned good for the "General Welfare" if everyone ate they veggies.

(Plus, Veggie Farmers need a better market)

Ergo, we need a Federal Law that dictates each citizen must purchase a specific amount of approved veggies, per year....
 
Sounds as ridiculous as when Scalia said it about broccoli. It demonstrates how seriously both of you take the actual issue before them. When do you think we can anticipate the "veggie issue" coming before them?
 
Sounds as ridiculous as when Scalia said it about broccoli.
Click to expand...

No it actually a very appropriate question.

The government is arguing that people without health insurance raise the cost of health insurance for people who do have health insurance. ( a false arguement that is based on a flawed, biased, non peer reviewed study, done by an organization that is pro government run health care, but that's besides the point.)

Therefore the government is arguing that people who use medical services not covered by insurance affect the cost of health insurance.

Scalia was merely pointing out that there are many things that affect the cost of health insurance, because there are many things that affect our health; from what we eat, to what activities we engage, to what occupations we are employed in.

So what Scalia was pointing out is that if we give the Federal Government the power to control what affects the cost of health care, and thus health insurance, we will be giving the government to control everything that affects our health; basically everything we do or any activity we engage in.

If this mandate is upheld, it creates a path to tyranny that is wide open.

This is exactly how we end up with all powerful police states.
 
Yep...if this passes the SCOTUS as being Constitutional...perhaps we should allow Kathleen Sebelius to decide on things that can be outlawed in order to create a healthier society...no more tobacco products for sale...no more alcohol sold in bulk (only two drinks a night, you know...any drinks more than that becomes unhealthy)...no more sugary snacks, cereal, etc (got to cut down on obesity)...we'll need kitchen police (to make sure everyone follows the nutrition pyramid)...
 
Provide for the General Welfare would be a blank check for a general dictatorship which I am sure would be loving.
 
zzigzzag said:
It will come down to the interpretation of Article One, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States"

Like every SC debate, it will be a matter of definitions. One side will argue that "general welfare" means "what's best for everyone". The other will argue that it doesn't really mean what it says....that "general welfare" actually means, "we're better off trusting the trickle down theory than doing the math over the long term."
Click to expand...

Mr. Zagg,

I thought Obummer said this wasn't a tax.
 
Sgt Staples said:
No it actually a very appropriate question.

The government is arguing that people without health insurance raise the cost of health insurance for people who do have health insurance. ( a false arguement that is based on a flawed, biased, non peer reviewed study, done by an organization that is pro government run health care, but that's besides the point.)

Therefore the government is arguing that people who use medical services not covered by insurance affect the cost of health insurance.

Scalia was merely pointing out that there are many things that affect the cost of health insurance, because there are many things that affect our health; from what we eat, to what activities we engage, to what occupations we are employed in.

So what Scalia was pointing out is that if we give the Federal Government the power to control what affects the cost of health care, and thus health insurance, we will be giving the government to control everything that affects our health; basically everything we do or any activity we engage in.

If this mandate is upheld, it creates a path to tyranny that is wide open.

This is exactly how we end up with all powerful police states.
Click to expand...

This is how we end up with meaningless debates. But do go on with your comparison of health care to vegetables. I'm really starting to cave on that one.

You do understand that this silly ploy could be used for every law on the books, don't you? "If you can require people to wear seat belts, you can make them wear full sets of armor." I didn't have to think very hard for that one. Want a few thousand more?
 
zzigzzag said:
This is how we end up with meaningless debates. But do go on with your comparison of health care to vegetables. I'm really starting to cave on that one.

You do understand that this silly ploy could be used for every law on the books, don't you? "If you can require people to wear seat belts, you can make them wear full sets of armor." I didn't have to think very hard for that one. Want a few thousand more?
Click to expand...

The broccoli argument is silly, in that no hungry American can walk into a grocery store and demand free broccoli. And..no one is even hinting at legislation that would allow them to do so.

To preempt btw, save me the allusion to food stamps. In the case of food stamps, the grocer is paid for the broccoli.
 
zzigzzag said:
Want a few thousand more?
Click to expand...

The problem with control freaks is that they never stop.

If the govt mandate is to "control health care costs", than anything that effects costs becomes an excuse for federal healthcare gestapo to intervene.

Or is that the progressive version of New Age Freedom?
 
"If you can require people to wear seat belts, you can make them wear full sets of armor." I didn't have to think very hard for that one. Want a few thousand more?
Click to expand...

Ahhh, the argument of a person who has no argument. The Federal Government does not mandate you wear a seat belt, and in any case a person who is not in a motor vehicle cannot be forced to wear a seat belt.

And the 'vegetable' argument does apply to health care, because what we eat or do not eat affects our health.

This is why an informed citizen is an Obama supporter's worst nightmare.
 
Doc said:
I think it would be damned good for the "General Welfare" if everyone ate they veggies.

(Plus, Veggie Farmers need a better market)

Ergo, we need a Federal Law that dictates each citizen must purchase a specific amount of approved veggies, per year....
Click to expand...

Doc, I couldn't agree more. And given that Al Gore has declared we have less than five years to save the planet, I hereby declare we need to mandate that everyone in the US buy a hybrid vehicle. This goes beyond a small issue like health care- saving the entire planet is at stake!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top