TexasCHLforum.com

Fangs wrote:"A health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a congress that exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke. What could possibly go wrong?"

Wow -- Sounds like a plan to me!

Fangs wrote:"A health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a congress that exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke. What could possibly go wrong?"

Since you put it that way, you just sold me on it.

If the Supreme Court lets this abomination stand, the Federal government reached the point where it's too damaged to fix.

The saddest thing is that this is labeled "heath care" but it's insurance regulation by the feds. Nothing more.

Forcing anyone to buy is not a solution, and in my opinion will be struck down by the high court, unless the Obamanation gets to appoint some judges...

Or just elected himself czar.

TLE2 wrote:The saddest thing is that this is labeled "heath care" but it's insurance regulation by the feds. Nothing more.

Forcing anyone to buy is not a solution, and in my opinion will be struck down by the high court, unless the Obamanation gets to appoint some judges...

Or just elected himself czar.

So say the Supreme Court says its all good, what then?

TLE2 wrote:The saddest thing is that this is labeled "heath care" but it's insurance regulation by the feds. Nothing more.

The crazy thing is that the single best thing that could be done to make affordable insurance available to everyone, is to invoke the "interstate commerce clause" as it was actually intended, for once: prohibit the states from outlawing interstate commerce when it comes to health insurance.

Create a true national market for health insurance, and we'd see prices plummet, for both insurance and the health care itself. Competition is wonderful like that.

marksiwel wrote:So say the Supreme Court says its all good, what then?

chabouk wrote:

TLE2 wrote:The saddest thing is that this is labeled "heath care" but it's insurance regulation by the feds. Nothing more.

The crazy thing is that the single best thing that could be done to make affordable insurance available to everyone, is to invoke the "interstate commerce clause" as it was actually intended, for once: prohibit the states from outlawing interstate commerce when it comes to health insurance.

Create a true national market for health insurance, and we'd see prices plummet, for both insurance and the health care itself. Competition is wonderful like that.

That would mean the purpose of this bill was actually reform. The true purpose of this bill is to expand government power and control by a degree or few. We're all the frogs in the pot of water on the stove, and the government is gradually increasing the temperature one degree at a time.

Automatic Payroll Deductions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onC1PE6kZ-U" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

marksiwel wrote:

TLE2 wrote:The saddest thing is that this is labeled "heath care" but it's insurance regulation by the feds. Nothing more.

Forcing anyone to buy is not a solution, and in my opinion will be struck down by the high court, unless the Obamanation gets to appoint some judges...

Or just elected himself czar.

So say the Supreme Court says its all good, what then?

Then if means, surprise of surprises, that talk radio performers (e.g. Rush Limbaugh, etc) are not the constitutional scholars that they think they are.

PSLOwner wrote:

marksiwel wrote:

TLE2 wrote:The saddest thing is that this is labeled "heath care" but it's insurance regulation by the feds. Nothing more.

Forcing anyone to buy is not a solution, and in my opinion will be struck down by the high court, unless the Obamanation gets to appoint some judges...

Or just elected himself czar.

So say the Supreme Court says its all good, what then?

Then if means, surprise of surprises, that talk radio performers (e.g. Rush Limbaugh, etc) are not the constitutional scholars that they think they are.

Or, God Forbid, it means that Obama has managed to stack the Court with Socialists by the time it gets there.

marksiwel wrote:

TLE2 wrote:The saddest thing is that this is labeled "heath care" but it's insurance regulation by the feds. Nothing more.

Forcing anyone to buy is not a solution, and in my opinion will be struck down by the high court, unless the Obamanation gets to appoint some judges...

Or just elected himself czar.

So say the Supreme Court says its all good, what then?

If they can show where the Constitution of the United States says the feds can force people to buy insurance, that's one thing.

On the other hand, if they say "commerce clause" then they're basically saying the feds can force you to have sex with an AIDS-infected prostitute. I disagree. See my signature.

If the gubm't can make you buy health insurance under the commerce clause, it can make you buy guns.

Stop, hey, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down.
--Buffalo Springfield.

I honestly wished they had passed an Amendment to the Constitution or failing that, they should have passed State Run Health Care Bills in Individual states and then worked a Deal where the states who accepted it could pool their resources (You know Congress and the whole interstate commerce business) Then IF it worked you would see other states wanting to do it because of it working. If you lived in a State that passed it and you didnt like it THAT much, you could have moved. One of the reasons they didnt just get rid of States is so they could try different laws and schools of thought (among other things)
Instead yeah, you get a Bill that is less than Stellar and full of provisions I dont like that was "Forced" but you can blame that on both Parties.
Overall a step in the Right Direction but done in less than great way.
The only reason I got involved in this is 1. I like to argue, I admit it. And I'm sorry 2. There was ALOT of misinformation being thrown around and I felt a need to step in.

I'm really awaiting the Supreme Court hearing, its coming I cant see it Not happening. Justice Scalia will be fun to hear on this issue.

PSLOwner wrote:

marksiwel wrote: So say the Supreme Court says its all good, what then?

Then if means, surprise of surprises, that talk radio performers (e.g. Rush Limbaugh, etc) are not the constitutional scholars that they think they are.

So, you believe every SCOTUS decision has been constitutionally correct? When they've reversed themselves, were they right both times?

Do you agree with Taney's ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford that those of African ancestry are "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect"? Or that allowing those of African descent to be citizens of the U.S., "...would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went"?

As a parenthetical aside, it's interesting that Dred Scott, although a horrible ruling, makes two points that concern gun control. First, the court said that American citizens have the right to "...keep and carry arms wherever they went." Second, they ruled that a property owner cannot be deprived of his property merely by being in a state where ownership of that property is illegal.