Obamacare finally ruled unconstitutional

[HSFBfan]

1 minute ago, Troll said:

no....it's just you being selfish....😝

Good.....the american way......always look out for #1.....yourself because nobody is going to look out for you and that includes the government

[Troll]

8 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

Good.....the american way......always look out for #1.....yourself because nobody is going to look out for you and that includes the government

When you can afford your own healthcare, and a more practical (independent) lifestyle.... hopefully you will have created some/enough space between survival and others, where you can add an addendum to that...

Where when you have enough...you can actually share...

just sayin'...🤔

 

BTW...You may have missed my previous SARCASM..... 😝

 

[HSFBfan]

Just now, Troll said:

When you can afford your own healthcare, and a more practical (independent) lifestyle.... hopefully you will have created some space between survival and others, where you can add an addendum to that...

Where when you have enough...you can actually share...

just sayin'...🤔

 

I had my health insurance. I decided to get rid of it. If I really wanted to keep it I could have. It's the principal. Its the fact that we finally got a judge who decided that like million of Americans were thinking that it's an unconstitutional piece of legislation 

[stanscript]

53 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

I had my health insurance. I decided to get rid of it. If I really wanted to keep it I could have. It's the principal. Its the fact that we finally got a judge who decided that like million of Americans were thinking that it's an unconstitutional piece of legislation 

And the judge's ruling will get overturned.

[Troll]

27 minutes ago, stanscript said:

And the judge's ruling will get overturned.

any thoughts on government requirements under penalty of law to make payments to some individual private industry companies???

or is that not to be considered as having any bearing on 'being constitutional' ...

 

You may be right....but I might not be so quick to count your 'chickens'....

 

BTW: As you prefer Industrial company management's projections on electric cars over my own, I did notice some really great quotes by Henry Ford (arguably the best at auto 'manufacturing')... as he was working with Thomas Edison (arguably the best at 'Electricity') on them for years 😜…...Amazing how 100 years ago, they were all saying the EXACT SAME things you are still trying to 'project' away today...🤣…

Some pretty shocking century old  'de ja vu' I'll tell you.... perhaps I should post them in the other thread. LOL

 

 

[Belly Bob]

2 hours ago, Troll said:

you talk a good game on the 'rights' people should have.... for free access to costly health services.....

but somehow I never saw any mention of the government's forced payments to privately held companies......under penalty of law...being the best way t do that...

now I think that if you were to actually ask those you debate where they stand on the government providing better access to healthcare, you might find their responses more agreeable.  I have always thought that Ocare was a nice attempt, but entirely unconstitutional and a slippery slope to even greater  governmental abuses...

maybe you could address  that, you know, the 'actual reason' most people consider it unconstitutional, on the day that it is ruled so..  Maybe you could even provide support for your opinion on how 'politically this was a good way to address your own beliefs.   That  others must pay for your own services which you consider your 'right' could easily be considered more 'selfish'.....Than what you appear to defend....

PS. If you can get past that, you may even want to consider that when  'others' include 'millions' of those who have never even joined into or paid into our social system to begin with,  you might even come to the conclusion that it is your own views, masked as 'empathy' that are in fact more 'selfish'...............….and socially destructive.

There's probably a better way. There usually is.

@HSFBfan, where do you stand on the government's providing better access to healthcare?

I don't want to talk about "rights" and "selfishness" but rights and selfishness. I don't think it's selfish, in the narrow sense which is morally problematic, to ask the government to protect people's rights, since that is the government's job. Requiring people to pay taxes has proven to be a pretty effective means of discharging the state's obligation to protect people's rights. That's why the mail comes almost every day, and the roads work, and the schools run, and the cops show up when you hit 911, etc. But there may be a better way to do it. I don't know.

If someone can but doesn't pay into the system, then they don't have the right to its services, since rights correlate with obligations. It may be beneficent to allow them the use of those services but it would't be something they could claim as a right. But if they can't pay into the system, then they haven't thereby failed to discharge their obligation, since no one has an obligation to do what he can't do. 

[HSFBfan]

30 minutes ago, stanscript said:

And the judge's ruling will get overturned.

We shall see. I dont think so as the mandate was the only thing keeping it alive. Now that that is gone it has been been unconstitutional. I assume this will go to the supreme court.

[HSFBfan]

10 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

There's probably a better a way. There usually is.

@HSFBfan, where do you stand on the government's providing better access to healthcare?

I don't want to talk about "rights" and "selfishness" but rights and selfishness. I don't think it's selfish, in the narrow sense which is morally problematic, to ask the government to protect people's rights, since that is the government's job. Requiring people to pay taxes has proven to be a pretty effective means of discharging the state's obligation to protect people's rights. That's why the mail comes almost every day, and the roads work, and the schools run, and the cops show up when you hit 911, etc. But there may be a better way to do it. I don't know.

If someone can but doesn't pay into the system, then they don't have the right to its services, since rights correlate with obligations. It may be beneficent to allow them the use of those services but it would't be something they could claim as a right. But if they can't pay into the system, then they haven't thereby failed to discharge their obligation, since no one has an obligation to do what he can't do. 

The government doesnt belong in our healthcare. It doesnt belong in our schools. It doesn't belong in our personal lives. It's all part of that limited government we supposed to have. Our government has overstepped its bounds a million times but we the people have our head so far up our asses most people dont care enough to do anything. 

Theres my 2 cents

Ok by your statement which I agree with why do illegals get to use our hospitals? They dont pay into the system

And our postal system is so broken and outdated there is no reason why we still have daily delivery of mail. We do everything over the computer. 

[Belly Bob]

3 hours ago, HSFBfan said:

Because it's not a right. Nowhere in any document that was set up by this country does it say you have a right to healthcare 

Again were not going to agree so there is no reason for this dicussion.

What document did those who wrote the documents consult to find out which rights people had?

[HSFBfan]

1 minute ago, Belly Bob said:

What document did those who wrote the documents consult to find out which rights people had?

I'm sure you know the answer to this question so we dont have to go over it.

You know where our rights come from

[Belly Bob]

5 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

The government doesnt belong in our healthcare. It doesnt belong in our schools. It doesn't belong in our personal lives. It's all part of that limited government we supposed to have. Our government has overstepped its bounds a million times but we the people have our head so far up our asses most people dont care enough to do anything. 

Theres my 2 cents

You don't want a representative government unless you have an educated citizen body. Education is a genuine need because the people elect their representatives. 

I'm pretty sure Jefferson founded the University of Virginia. 

[Belly Bob]

4 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

I'm sure you know the answer to this question so we dont have to go over it.

You know where our rights come from

No, I don't. Maybe you're referring to the Constitution. But what document did Jefferson consult to determine which rights people have?

[HSFBfan]

Just now, Belly Bob said:

You don't want a representative government unless you have an educated citizen body. Education is a genuine need because the people elect their representatives. 

I'm pretty sure Jefferson founded the University of Virginia. 

We dont need government telling us what to do in our education. Everything the government touches they fuck up.

Lee was president I believe of Washington and lee university as well as the commandant of the USMA.

But there is no reason why government is setting up any sort of curriculum for students. Leave that up to the teachers who are in the field. 

[HSFBfan]

1 minute ago, Belly Bob said:

No, I don't. Maybe you're referring to the Constitution. But what document did Jefferson consult to determine which rights people have?

He took our constitution off of the English bill of rights. Our rights and rhe English rights were very comparable. As we all know originally they wrote the articles of confederation which were replaced rather quickly 

[Belly Bob]

4 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

We dont need government telling us what to do in our education. Everything the government touches they fuck up.

Lee was president I believe of Washington and lee university as well as the commandant of the USMA.

But there is no reason why government is setting up any sort of curriculum for students. Leave that up to the teachers who are in the field. 

Curriculum is one question, and taxing people for schools is another, which is what we're talking about now. 

[Belly Bob]

2 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

He took our constitution off of the English bill of rights. Our rights and rhe English rights were very comparable. As we all know originally they wrote the articles of confederation which were replaced rather quickly 

And which document did the people who wrote that document use to determine which rights people have?

[HSFBfan]

Just now, Belly Bob said:

Curriculum is one question, and taxing people for it is another, which what we're talking about now. 

If you have kids and want to educate them which I'm gonna say 99.9% of the population wants to educate their kids should pay the brunt of it. That was your choice to have kids. You should pay for the brunt of it. The rest of society should not pay for your decision 

[Belly Bob]

1 minute ago, HSFBfan said:

If you have kids and want to educate them which I'm gonna say 99.9% of the population wants to educate their kids should pay the brunt of it. That was your choice to have kids. You should pay for the brunt of it. The rest of society should not pay for your decision 

I don't think the state would function if you treated its essential services like items on a Chinese takeout menu. 

[Troll]

2 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

There's probably a better a way. There usually is.<<<yes agreed

@HSFBfan, where do you stand on the government's providing better access to healthcare? 

I don't want to talk about "rights" and "selfishness" but rights and selfishness. I don't think it's selfish, in the narrow sense which is morally problematic, to ask the government to protect people's rights, since that is the government's job. Requiring people to pay taxes has proven to be a pretty effective means of discharging the state's obligation to protect people's rights. That's why the mail comes almost every day, and the roads work, and the schools run, and the cops show up when you hit 911, etc. But there may be a better way to do it. I don't know.<<<this is where you are falling off the rails...you may consider it a 'right' to have ACCESS to healthcare...but it is certainly not a 'right' to have others pay for their costs when they use that access.....this conflict might be a whole lot easier if you could divide up 'basic services' from one of the most advanced and expensive systems in the world.....but unfortunately that is not our setup. 

If someone can but doesn't pay into the system, then they don't have the right to its services, since rights correlate with obligations.<<<yes I agree  It may be beneficent to allow them the use of those services but it would't be something they could claim as a right. <Yes agreed again. But if they can't pay into the system, then they haven't thereby failed to discharge their obligation, since no one has an obligation to do what he can't do. <<see below

sounds logical...but obligations cannot be discharged by illegally jumping into a system, using what you can or need from it, and then claim your obligations to that system are now null and void because 'they' did not want or allow you in it...

Basically false logic..

And certainly not worthy of berating someone who cannot reasonably afford their own use or needs from that same system...the whole while he is in fact paying for those same 'rights' which he does not in fact receive...

You see...while you claim it is a 'right' for 'everyone'....

Instead of siding with those who have suffered adversely under the system, that they are required to pay into and cannot reasonably afford to access this very same 'right'.....you appear to side with those who contribute nothing, and claim discrimination in the form of inclusion, as justification....

Appearences don't always accurately reflect what one thinks tho.. (if they did I would be in big shit LOL), but hopefully that better explains the angle I was debating on the subject....

[Belly Bob]

32 minutes ago, Troll said:

sounds logical...but obligations cannot be discharged by illegally jumping into a system, using what you can or need from it, and then claim your obligations to that system are now null and void because 'they' did not want or allow you in it...

Basically false logic..

And certainly not worthy of berating someone who cannot reasonably afford their own use or needs from that same system...the whole while he is in fact paying for those same 'rights' which he does not in fact receive...

You see...while you claim it is a 'right' for 'everyone'....

Instead of siding with those who have suffered adversely under the system, that they are required to pay into and cannot reasonably afford to access this very same 'right'.....you appear to side with those who contribute nothing, and claim discrimination in the form of inclusion, as justification....

Appearences don't always accurately reflect what one thinks tho.. (if they did I would be in big shit LOL), but hopefully that better explains the angle I was debating on the subject....

Where's the basic false logic? I don't want to cover the same ground that we've already covered in a previous thread. It's boring. 

Again, I don't want to talk about "rights" but rights. Trump may be a good or bad President. But "Trump" can be neither. Nor can Trump be a "good" or "bad" President.

No, I don't side with those who contribute nothing, unless they are not able to contribute, since, again, you aren't obligated to do what you can't do. Like I stated very clearly, if you can but don't pay into the system, then you don't have a right to its services.

If you can and do, then I don't see why you don't have a right to those services -- basic false logic aside. 

[Troll]

1 minute ago, Belly Bob said:

Where's the basic false logic? I don't want to cover the same ground 

int that interest,  you can remove the 'false' logic statement as overkill (sorry bout that), and call it 'competing logics'...

As you can certainly see the difference.....which logic should prevail?

Or should we say.....which one is "LESS Logical"......

?????

 

[Belly Bob]

33 minutes ago, Drummer61 said:

When the govt controls your healthcare, they control you....Privatize it, make ins companies cover all conditions, compete across state lines ,make fatso people and smokers pay much more.....Certain conditions that come from bad lifestyles should not be tolerated with continued treatment and no more free abortions paid by tax payers....Individuals MUST be much more diligent about their health and not eat garbage, be fat slobs, smoke and be lazy...We are NOT ENTITLED TO FREE HEALTHCARE, rather should demand of ourselves to be healthy....Many who want everything free are the worst in terms of personal accountability....I see an awful lot of lot of Gold tooth fatso's with all the toys and no jobs.....Fuck the takers,lets all try to be MAKERS....

And privatize the military and the police and the schools and the roads. That sounds like a wise and thoughtful plan. Give the power to the consumer. 

I think that's interesting. It may well be the case that those who are likely to take more out of the system through their own avoidable actions have an obligation to pay more into the system.

The state's job is to protect people's rights. If we have a right to life, which grounds the right to a police force, which the state provides for us by requiring that we pay taxes, then why not healthcare?

[Belly Bob]

13 minutes ago, Troll said:

int that interest,  you can remove the 'false' logic statement as overkill (sorry bout that), and call it 'competing logics'...

As you can certainly see the difference.....which logic should prevail?

Or should we say.....which one is "LESS Logical"......

?????

It depends on the arguments. Here's one.

1. If you have a right to life, then you have a right to healthcare.

2. You have a right to life.

3. Therefore, you have a right to healthcare.

4. If you have a right to x, then the state has an obligation to protect that right.

5. Therefore, the state has an obligation to protect your right to healthcare. 

That's just a sketch, and it may not be perfect, but it's better than anything else I've seen here. 

[Belly Bob]

3 minutes ago, Drummer61 said:

No.......My statement is the way of accountability ...Government healthcare is NOT the way to go and it's NOT OUR RIGHT...... for it to be provided......

I heard you the first time you said it. 

It is often more helpful to provide reasons in support of your view than restating it. 

[Troll]

6 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

The state's job is to protect people's rights. If we have a right to life, which grounds the right to a police force, which the state provides for us by requiring that we pay taxes, then why not healthcare?

you just nailed the "great separator' in this debate...

Can't ever expect people to be in agreement with one side of that equation....

Given the FANTASTIC point......my 2 cents is that government should at the very least have some sort of 'tax collection' (actual tax, not payments to private companies) to be able to provide basic 'emergency' or otherwise life 'preserving' services I.E. hospitals.... But private industries should be able to be used as well given that they have the 'competitive need' to advance their own science and product, where any government does not....

Of course many will claim that some 2-party system by it's very format is discriminatory as supposedly 'better care' will be only for those that can 'afford' it …..but I don't buy that for several reasons...