The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

Then explain your remark and what you were trying to infer---"Yes, let's just make this about me, how about you tell us why this is a good law case and pretend you don't like it simply because the black president wants it."

Because when your position is indefensible, you attack the person challenging it. It doesn't matter if your attacks are built on the back of your own lies, the important thing is to obsfucate. It's right out of "Rules for Radicals".

[Tiberius]

The process by which our laws are created and administered is fundamentally more important than any individual law, as this is what has made our "great experiment" so successful. It is the singular reason the phrase, "law of the land" holds any weight, as we all understand that under the American system, the process begins and ends a certain when you remove that process, you undermine respect for the rule of law, and as the rule of law depends aw depends wholly on the respect of it's citizens to exist, you undermine the rule of law itself.

what a load of horse manure. You are actually trying to argue that there will be greater respect for government if they overturn the ACA on this technical issue? That's idiotic!!

 

Im going outside so I don't waste any more time here today!

[Rob's House]

what a load of horse manure. You are actually trying to argue that there will be greater respect for government if they overturn the ACA on this technical issue? That's idiotic!!

 

Im going outside so I don't waste any more time here today!

 

Actually what he's saying is that following unambiguous constitutional procedures is more important to the long term legitimacy of government than maintaining a politician's so-called legacy.

[TakeYouToTasker]

what a load of horse manure. You are actually trying to argue that there will be greater respect for government if they overturn the ACA on this technical issue? That's idiotic!!

 

Im going outside so I don't waste any more time here today!

Why did you edit the content of my post to make it poorly written and nonsensical? The quote function doesn't do that, so you had to intentionally edit it.

 

Edit: And Rob has the right of it.

Edited May 4, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[3rdnlng]

"The process by which our laws are created and administered is fundamentally more important than any individual law, as this is what has made our "great experiment" so successful. It is the singular reason the phrase, "law of the land" holds any weight, as we all understand that under the American system, the process begins and ends a certain way."

 

When you remove that process, you undermine respect for the rule of law, and as the rule of law depends wholly on the respect of it's citizens to exist, you undermine the rule of law itself."

 

Gatorman--why would you alter TYTT post? I've never called for a banning here, believing in free speech, but dishonesty is another thing. Shame on you.

Edited May 5, 2014 by 3rdnlng

[Tiberius]

3rd and TYTT, I write on an iPad and in order to get below the quote I have to randomly erase large parts of the text. I don't pay attention to what I erase I just hit cut and figure you knew I was replying to the entire quote, sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

 

That said, your arguments for why a bill passed by both houses of congress isn't constitutional is a pretty thin reed. Tell me again how this will undermine the government? Be specific, the vague, extremely general idea that respect will be lost is really silly. 99.9% of Americans probably don't know that the Bill was altered a lot by the Senate

[TakeYouToTasker]

3rd and TYTT, I write on an iPad and in order to get below the quote I have to randomly erase large parts of the text. I don't pay attention to what I erase I just hit cut and figure you knew I was replying to the entire quote, sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

 

That said, your arguments for why a bill passed by both houses of congress isn't constitutional is a pretty thin reed. Tell me again how this will undermine the government? Be specific, the vague, extremely general idea that respect will be lost is really silly. 99.9% of Americans probably don't know that the Bill was altered a lot by the Senate

I post frequently from both my iPad and iPhone, and that's never been an issue for me. However, I will accept your apology with one caveat: in the future note that you've edited the quoted post.

 

That said, a plurality (majority?) of Americans not knowing that the Constitution has been violated does not render the violation moot, unless you're arguing against having a Constitution, or at least against having the Constitution we have. The Constitution expressly states that bills will originate in the House; and there is a reason for that.

 

Care to take a guess at the reason?

Edited May 5, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Tiberius]

 

I post frequently from both my iPad and iPhone, and that's never been an issue for me. However, I will accept you apology with one caveat: in the future note that you've edited the quoted post.

 

That said, a plurality (majority?) of Americans not knowing that the Constitution has been violated does not render the violation moot, unless you're arguing against having a Constitution, or at least against having the Constitution we have. The Constitution expressly states that bills will originate in the House; and there is a reason for that.

 

Care to take a guess at the reason?

I know there is a reason for that, it WAS because the House was suppose to be the "government closest to the people" But that was before the 17th amendment. That point is not pertinent now.

 

And my point about the people knowing, is that how can there be a loss of respect for the government, law or the constitution if no one even knows this principle was not strictly followed?

[TakeYouToTasker]

I know there is a reason for that, it WAS because the House was suppose to be the "government closest to the people" But that was before the 17th amendment. That point is not pertinent now.

Even after the 17th, the House is still the "government closest to the People". Every district has a Representative, and those Representatives spend far more time at home than do their brethren in the Senate, as their terms expire every two years.

 

And my point about the people knowing, is that how can there be a loss of respect for the government, law or the constitution if no one even knows this principle was not strictly followed?

Because the people who actually matter, and move the country forward, do know. You look around the rest of the world, and you see major uprisings. America is not immune to that. Further, it's not a scene any of us want to see on American streets. The reason that America has never seen those sorts of uprisings, is because of our Rule of Law. Once that's gone, there's nothing separating us from the rest of the global community.

[Tiberius]

 

Even after the 17th, the House is still the "government closest to the People". Every district has a Representative, and those Representatives spend far more time at home than do their brethren in the Senate, as their terms expire every two years.

 

 

Because the people who actually matter, and move the country forward, do know. You look around the rest of the world, and you see major uprisings. America is not immune to that. Further, it's not a scene any of us want to see on American streets. The reason that America has never seen those sorts of uprisings, is because of our Rule of Law. Once that's gone, there's nothing separating us from the rest of the global community.

And the house closet to the people voted on and approved and passed the bill. What's the problem? Not to get too much into history, but this part of the constitution grew out of British history, not ours. The Hose of Commons in England really was closer to "the People" and the house of lords wa really closer to the established and legal aristocracy and monarchy. We had neither in this country but the guys that wrote the constitution felt victimized by aristocracy and monarchy across the pond so that's why they put that provision in there.

 

I'm out!! Night

 

As to your other point I do not agree, it's more of a legal technicality.

[Keukasmallies]

Note to g'man: Always read what you wrote BEFORE clicking Post. Incorrect word usage, spelling mistakes, typos, and grammatical errors tend to deflect attention from the essence of what you write....Oh, wait a minute, I guess that doesn't apply to you.

[TakeYouToTasker]

And the house closet to the people voted on and approved and passed the bill. What's the problem? Not to get too much into history, but this part of the constitution grew out of British history, not ours. The Hose of Commons in England really was closer to "the People" and the house of lords wa really closer to the established and legal aristocracy and monarchy. We had neither in this country but the guys that wrote the constitution felt victimized by aristocracy and monarchy across the pond so that's why they put that provision in there.

First of all, all our pre-revolutionary history, and a good portion of our post-revolutionary history, is British history; yet the Constitution divorced us from the British Parlimentary system.

 

The bicameral legislature, and the process by which a bill origionates, and then becomes law, are not technicalities; they are purposeful.

 

Bills must origionate in the House, rather than the Senate, such that all law comes directly from the People, whereas Senators are representitives of State interests. This is designed as a check on Federal power which keeps the people from being dictated to by the States or the executive. The bills must then be sent to the Senate, whose membership, beholden to the states, and with longer terms, are less subject to the whims of unbridled populism. This works as a check on radical and abrupt changes, and also works to prevent the will of larger and more populus states from being imposed on smaller and less densely populated areas of the counrty, and builds consisency into our rule of law, which helps to further legitimize it.

 

As to your other point I do not agree, it's more of a legal technicality.

It's hardly a legal technicality, as I outlined above. It's the entire purpose of the process by which our laws are created.

[DC Tom]

First of all, all our pre-revolutionary history, and a good portion of our post-revolutionary history, is British history; yet the Constitution divorced us from the British Parlimentary system.

 

The bicameral legislature, and the process by which a bill origionates, and then becomes law, are not technicalities; they are purposeful.

 

Bills must origionate in the House, rather than the Senate, such that all law comes directly from the People, whereas Senators are representitives of State interests. This is designed as a check on Federal power which keeps the people from being dictated to by the States or the executive. The bills must then be sent to the Senate, whose membership, beholden to the states, and with longer terms, are less subject to the whims of unbridled populism. This works as a check on radical and abrupt changes, and also works to prevent the will of larger and more populus states from being imposed on smaller and less densely populated areas of the counrty, and builds consisency into our rule of law, which helps to further legitimize it.

 

 

It's hardly a legal technicality, as I outlined above. It's the entire purpose of the process by which our laws are created.

 

You'll have to excuse him. He and other insane liberals believe that governance stems from the actions of "great men," and such people should be allowed to do whatever they think is best.

[Tiberius]

First of all, all our pre-revolutionary history, and a good portion of our post-revolutionary history, is British history; yet the Constitution divorced us from the British Parlimentary system.

 

The bicameral legislature, and the process by which a bill origionates, and then becomes law, are not technicalities; they are purposeful.

 

Bills must origionate in the House, rather than the Senate, such that all law comes directly from the People, whereas Senators are representitives of State interests. This is designed as a check on Federal power which keeps the people from being dictated to by the States or the executive. The bills must then be sent to the Senate, whose membership, beholden to the states, and with longer terms, are less subject to the whims of unbridled populism. This works as a check on radical and abrupt changes, and also works to prevent the will of larger and more populus states from being imposed on smaller and less densely populated areas of the counrty, and builds consisency into our rule of law, which helps to further legitimize it.

 

 

It's hardly a legal technicality, as I outlined above. It's the entire purpose of the process by which our laws are created.

And yet in spite of this the House voted on and approved the measure, so I say so what. I still don't see how this law's passage caused any damage at all to the Constitutional process. Show me concrete, tangible, measurable damage this caused.

 

The large state/small state fear that was written into the Constitution never materialized, think Texas/California and Hawaii and Arkansas. And what you wrote--did you get that directly from the Federalist Papers?--doesn't show any damage done with this law, and is sort of the opposite of what you argue. Remember the people vote for senators now, not the State legislators. You are right that the senate was designed to slow everything down, but it amending the bill sent from the House in no way damages that process. The house coul;d have simply rejected it

[3rdnlng]

And yet in spite of this the House voted on and approved the measure, so I say so what. I still don't see how this law's passage caused any damage at all to the Constitutional process. Show me concrete, tangible, measurable damage this caused.

 

The large state/small state fear that was written into the Constitution never materialized, think Texas/California and Hawaii and Arkansas. And what you wrote--did you get that directly from the Federalist Papers?--doesn't show any damage done with this law, and is sort of the opposite of what you argue. Remember the people vote for senators now, not the State legislators. You are right that the senate was designed to slow everything down, but it amending the bill sent from the House in no way damages that process. The house coul;d have simply rejected it

 

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.

[Dorkington]

If the people don't want a law in place, then their representatives should vote along those lines. It appears ACA is very unpopular, and as such it should be removed from law.

 

That all being said, I still haven't seen it as being an overly negative or positive law. I like some of the regulations put in place. I think the mandate is a good intention, in that it should get everyone into the system... but the reality of a mandate (people can't afford health insurance) without a REALLY comprehensive subsidy program falls apart.

 

To me, the real answer still continues to be either single payer, or universal healthcare.

 

I hope if ACA gets over turned, certain parts of the law, specifically keeping "kids" on plans until 26, preventative care measures, and other regulations, stay in place.

[Azalin]

To me, the real answer still continues to be either single payer, or universal healthcare.

 

I'm being sincere in asking what the difference is between the two. I'd always assumed they were one in the same.

 

and if people think the ACA is unpopular now, just imagine the unpopularity if all the mandates hadn't been delayed.

 

and if the goal is to provide access to health insurance for those who couldn't afford it, why not simply address that through improving medicaid and working to assist those with pre-existing conditions, and leaving the health plans alone that people were already happy with?

[Rob's House]

And yet in spite of this the House voted on and approved the measure, so I say so what. I still don't see how this law's passage caused any damage at all to the Constitutional process. Show me concrete, tangible, measurable damage this caused.

 

The large state/small state fear that was written into the Constitution never materialized, think Texas/California and Hawaii and Arkansas. And what you wrote--did you get that directly from the Federalist Papers?--doesn't show any damage done with this law, and is sort of the opposite of what you argue. Remember the people vote for senators now, not the State legislators. You are right that the senate was designed to slow everything down, but it amending the bill sent from the House in no way damages that process. The house coul;d have simply rejected it

 

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.

[Dorkington]

I'm being sincere in asking what the difference is between the two. I'd always assumed they were one in the same.

 

and if people think the ACA is unpopular now, just imagine the unpopularity if all the mandates hadn't been delayed.

 

and if the goal is to provide access to health insurance for those who couldn't afford it, why not simply address that through improving medicaid and working to assist those with pre-existing conditions, and leaving the health plans alone that people were already happy with?

 

Any talks of major expansion of medicare/medicaid were rebuffed almost immediately, from what I remember.

 

Single payer = Government insurance

 

Universal healthcare = Government hospitals/doctors

 

At least as far as I understand.

[TH3]

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.

 

OK - it gets overturned - they put you in charge of replacing it - what would you propose?

 

Any talks of major expansion of medicare/medicaid were rebuffed almost immediately, from what I remember.

 

Single payer = Government insurance

 

Universal healthcare = Government hospitals/doctors

 

At least as far as I understand.

 

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.