SCOTUS Healthcare Ruling

[rr2008]

Probably a lot of speculation here, but it's going to make wait times at the doctors office longer because more people are going to be there because they have a head cold and they can go because they have "free" healthcare (need revise the word "free" in the new dictionary), this is going to cut my time with the doctor, more people are not going to have to find a job now since they have "free" healtcare putting a burden on us taxpaying citizens and the economy and the deficit causing more taxes to supply this black hole of a law. When my employer stops covering my healthcare insurance like others companies have already stated they will, I'll get a doctor assigned to me by the gov. that will have to go through all of the piles of red tape that the gov. has put in his way, and take longer to get serious treatmen, then instead of fighting with private insurance over medical bills, I'll have to fight someone who is paid by the already taxed government. Ever had to deal with the government? What else...I already mentioned the deficit. I'm sure there are other things that I'm missing. That's all speculation on my side, I'll have to see what happens in the future, but those are my concerns. Did I say anything about increased medical cost to pay for those leeches of society who don't want to work to get their "free" healtcare?

Please provide to me some more information about this "free" health insurance. I am always on the lookout for "free", i post for free samples every chance i get, sometimes i get good stuff, sometimes junk. But i had not heard about this "free" health insurance till i read your post. I want to check into this "free" no cost to me health insurance to see if it will be a viable alternative, so please reply back as I am sure others will be interested where to find this "free' insurance, or were you just blowing hot air out your arse.

 

[jsl_pt]

If such a thing as a strict reading of the constitution existed, we wouldn't have a Supreme Court. The state's rights thing in defense of a state-level mandate seems like a cop-out for people that preach "limited government, more freedom".

Sure, you can look at it as the states are free to implement a mandate on a state level and believe the Feds are not. But you could also look at the state's mandate overriding the individual rights of the individuals living in that state. Depends on how any given internet Constitutional scholar interprets the 9th and 10th amendments.

Again - I live reality, not 1776 on paper. The Federal Government "overstepped its bounds" according to some people decades upon decades ago. Under your strict reading of the constitution, the vast majority of programs implemented and departments created on a Federal level for the past 100+ years are blatantly unconstitutional - as is the vast majority of government spending. The only difference is that existing law and federal departments don't make good political football for the 2012 presidential election.

I live according to 1776 in regards to having a hunger for true freedom. And yes government has been out of control for decades and there are many programs and agencies that have no business even existing according to the limitations of the constitution. Today's government sees the constitution as if it doesn't say they can't do something then they can, It should be read as the govenment can only have authority over what is stated. I am striving for 1776, you can keep the reality of today's government all to yourself for all I care.

 

[RidgeHunter]

I jut don't see how people quell the dissonance of accepting a state-level mandate as legit, and preaching that a fed-level mandate is the end of the world. So everyone here who is opposed to Obamacare would not dissent if Oklahoma passed a state-level healthcare plan that required you to purchase insurance? You wouldn't view that as an infringement on your idividual freedom at all?

All it seems like is rationalizing supporting a GOP candidate that does not share your values and beliefs.

 

[3inSlugger]

I jut don't see how people quell the dissonance of accepting a state-level mandate as legit, and preaching that a fed-level mandate is the end of the world. So everyone here who is opposed to Obamacare would not dissent if Oklahoma passed a state-level healthcare plan that required you to purchase insurance? You wouldn't view that as an infringement on your idividual freedom at all?

All it seems like is rationalizing supporting a GOP candidate that does not share your values and beliefs.

I'm not voting for that slimy haired babykisser...EVER!

 

[ignerntbend]

I live according to 1776 in regards to having a hunger for true freedom. And yes government has been out of control for decades and there are many programs and agencies that have no business even existing according to the limitations of the constitution. Today's government sees the constitution as if it doesn't say they can't do something then they can, It should be read as the govenment can only have authority over what is stated. I am striving for 1776, you can keep the reality of today's government all to yourself for all I care.

If you want to "live according to 1776" you won't be requiring health care anyway. The wonders of modern surgery and pharmacuticals shouldn't interest you at all, but at least you'll have the liberties of the founders, most of whom never lived to be sixty.
If you want to duplicate their liberty you have to duplicate their life world too dont you?

 

[RidgeHunter]

I'm not voting for that slimy haired babykisser...EVER!

At least you're consistent.

The Romney defenders with their "Well you see, Obama is Constitution-trampling socialist, but Romney is only a freedom-trampling socialist within the guidelines of how I armchair interpret the 10th amendment in this particular circumstance at this particular time for this one specific reason. That's the difference." kinda blow my mind. Talk about doing back flips to rationalize something.

 

[3inSlugger]

At least you're consistent.

The Romney-defenders with their "Well you see, Obama is Constitution-trampling socialist, but Romney is only a freedom-trampling socialist within the guidelines of how I armchair interpret the 10th amendment in this particular circumstance at this particular time for this one specific reason. That's the difference." kinda blow my mind. Talk about doing back flips to rationalize something.

I agree with basically everything you've said in this thread...I will only be voting for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul or no one.
I will not compromise my values so that "someone slightly better-by GOP standards anyway" can beat the evil POTUS.
I seriously want Obama out, but a vote for Romney will just replace statist with pasty statist, so I can't stomach voting for either.

 

[jsl_pt]

If you want to "live according to 1776" you won't be requiring health care anyway. The wonders of modern surgery and pharmacuticals shouldn't interest you at all, but at least you'll have the liberties of the founders, most of whom never lived to be sixty.
If you want to duplicate their liberty you have to duplicate their life world too dont you?

Uh it doesn't mean literally live like they did then, so you point is irrelevant. It means have the freedoms, limited government, rebellion against government control. We don't have to go back to their lifestyle to get to 1776 ideology. Unless you live on the government teet so much you can't make it without them.

On a side note going along with your theory, I bet people appreciated their lives an country a whole lot more back then!

 

[ignerntbend]

Uh it doesn't mean literally .

That's all I wanted to hear. It means something "figuratively" and who gets to decide what that means.
You, of course

 

[jsl_pt]

Part of my post was jumbled from auto correct on my phone however you wrongly quoted my post by combining two separate parts, nice, feel free to correct my spelling errors too, show me how much smarter you are. Geese
Anyway I have edited the partway was wrong as shown below.
******
Unless you live on the government teet so much you can't make it without them.
******

I stand by it, you laugh and mock while you suck down government healthcare all the way, I want no part of it. But I'll be paying for someone else's healthcare that's for sure, even more than I already am. I want freedom and not going to give up on the constitution just because some people say it is outdated or think it is a lost cause. You basically say that we must give up all the luxuries of today if we want the freedom of 1776, that's BS!


*****Edit, and now you edited your post taking out what was referred to above by combining my sentences incorrectly