RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


jlf1961 -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/5/2012 7:46:41 AM)

The Paul father and son team are idiots.




mnottertail -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/5/2012 7:48:09 AM)

But you gotta admit you would pay to see them as a tag team in a caged death match.





MrRodgers -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/5/2012 8:35:33 AM)

I agree...I should decide what is or is not constitutional.

I have no ax to grind, no conflict of interest, but as a true blue (?) red, white and blue rent-seeking capitalist, the most important thing is where do I make my money.

After all, in America, that's all that really matters or we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.




Moonhead -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/5/2012 8:59:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Rand Paul shouldn't decide what the supreme court can and cannot decide unless he and his father are wearing attestably certified tinfoil. 

He cn't decide what they do, Ron: that's why he's whining about what they do, innit?




InsaneSerenity -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/5/2012 11:55:53 AM)

100% guaranteed the quote is totally taken out of context.

And what was done was not deciding if a law as proposed is constitutional or not, the chief justice rewrote the entire law as a tax and then decided that tax was constitutional. The supreme court is not suppose to do that.

And the court has been extremely partisan for a long time. Many decisions have been taken out of thin air just to forward justices political views. they've mutated and distorted what the constitution actually says that it has become meaningless. healthcare is not in the constitution, therefor the feds should not be able to touch it at all.

This decision means they have the power to tax anything they want for any reason. so prepare for the stupidity of new york city to come nationwide, but with taxes on it all.




mnottertail -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/5/2012 11:59:52 AM)

the chief justice rewrote the entire law as a tax




That notion is blathering lies of the highest order.




Moonhead -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/5/2012 12:03:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: InsaneSerenity
The supreme court is not suppose to do that.

They're also not (as has already been noted) supposed to veto election results.
Did you complain about that as well, or is this yet more partisan whining masquerading as an objective disdain for specific cases?




Lucylastic -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/5/2012 12:04:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: InsaneSerenity

100% guaranteed the quote is totally taken out of context.

And what was done was not deciding if a law as proposed is constitutional or not, the chief justice rewrote the entire law as a tax and then decided that tax was constitutional. The supreme court is not suppose to do that.

And the court has been extremely partisan for a long time. Many decisions have been taken out of thin air just to forward justices political views. they've mutated and distorted what the constitution actually says that it has become meaningless. healthcare is not in the constitution, therefor the feds should not be able to touch it at all.

This decision means they have the power to tax anything they want for any reason. so prepare for the stupidity of new york city to come nationwide, but with taxes on it all.

Read the statement from his own site
http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=562
Jun 28, 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Following today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, Sen. Rand Paul offered the following statement:

"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right," Sen. Paul said.

"Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system. This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare," he continued.

oops looks to be the same....
btw, nobody on the right has been accusing the SC of being partisan, especially were they happy with the ruling on Citizen United...




Musicmystery -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/5/2012 1:29:19 PM)

quote:

100% guaranteed the quote is totally taken out of context.


OK. What's the context?




mnottertail -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/5/2012 1:37:09 PM)

The 100% guarentee by what I am seeing in credible citations.




Owner59 -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/5/2012 5:47:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: InsaneSerenity

100% guaranteed the quote is totally taken out of context.

And what was done was not deciding if a law as proposed is constitutional or not, the chief justice rewrote the entire law as a tax and then decided that tax was constitutional. The supreme court is not suppose to do that.

And the court has been extremely partisan for a long time. Many decisions have been taken out of thin air just to forward justices political views. they've mutated and distorted what the constitution actually says that it has become meaningless. healthcare is not in the constitution, therefor the feds should not be able to touch it at all.

This decision means they have the power to tax anything they want for any reason. so prepare for the stupidity of new york city to come nationwide, but with taxes on it all.



Not true......the tax break/penalty thing was there at the beginning.....years ago.


I saw Firm lurking.........


He was a huge supporter of the chief justice a while back......


Actually complimented buusshhhhh on making a great choice.......


Wonder what thinks about Justice Roberts now?[;)]




DarkSteven -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/5/2012 7:31:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


WASHINGTON, D.C. - Following today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, Sen. Rand Paul offered the following statement:

"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right," Sen. Paul said.

"Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system. This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare," he continued.



1. Paul is loony. The SCOTUS has no purpose aside from determining what is constitutional and not. Paul is a freaking doctor - where does he get off second guessing SCOTUS?
2. If he's going to claim this will destroy health care, he could at least detail HOW. As far as I can tell, it will replace the covered people subsidizing the uninsured with low-claims people subsidizing high-claims people. I honestly can't see any parties benefiting except the HMOs and PPOs, and the US taxpayer being hurt just a small amount ro spread out the premiums.

The GOP has lost it. They've known for years that the only way to win is to focus on the economy. Instead we have loonies screaming about death panels and that the SCOTUS doesn't know what it's doing. They're addressing complex issues that the public doesn't understand with crazy talk. They've tried to claim that Obama is a radical Muslim born in Kenya, and they'd rather do that than work out legislation with the Dems.




erieangel -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/5/2012 9:32:15 PM)

I remember seeing Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow back in 2010 arguing that the Civil Rights Act should be repealed.

Can't get any loonier than that.





ClassIsInSession -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/5/2012 9:43:42 PM)

One thing is clear, Obama swore it was not a "tax" and now the Supreme Court says it is. One side has to be lying.

What bothers me more about the health care law is all of the non-related health care crap that got stuffed into it. I don't like the mandate, because as a free society, nothing should be mandated. A person should clearly be able to opt out, and assume the responsibility for doing so. I think in the long term what we will see as a result is an outcry when choices get taken away about the particular course of actions taken when it comes to health care. For example, suppose there is a "mandate" that everyone gets a particular vaccine that is new and relatively untested. You feel it is not something you want to take, but it is mandated as part of your health care to do so.

I had cancer in the 90s, and after having surgery for it, the oncologist wanted to remove all of the lymph nodes on the left side of my body, and give me several rounds of chemo and radiation. I declined all of that, and insisted we simply monitor the blood and do quarterly CT scans for 2 years as he initially suggested. Had I followed his course blindly, there is not telling what kind of physical problems I could have had, chemo and radiation are hard on even healthy tissues in the body and tend to create organ problems. Because I declined it, I made an educated and personal decision. 17 years later I see that my choice, against what the Doctor wanted turned out to be a very good one. I haven't had so much as a cold or flu in well over 14 years and I'm confirmably cancer free. Had I been under this new health care program, I don't think I would have had that much say so in the matter.

That's to me, a major issue.

I'll also add I haven't had health insurance in 7 years and I've been to the ER twice, and had several doctor's visits. I paid for all of them with cash. What I saved in insurance premiums was well worth setting money aside to pay for service on my own.

I think mandates of any kind set a very dangerous precedent in this country and a decline in liberty.




Musicmystery -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/5/2012 10:14:37 PM)

quote:

Had I been under this new health care program, I don't think I would have had that much say so in the matter.


What? Total invention.




Edwynn -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/5/2012 10:39:05 PM)


quote:

What bothers me more about the health care law is all of the non-related health care crap that got stuffed into it.


Explain that.

quote:

I don't like the mandate, because as a free society, nothing should be mandated.


Traffic lights, education, building codes, a ton of other things, have been mandated for some decades now.

quote:

I think in the long term what we will see as a result is an outcry when choices get taken away about the particular course of actions taken when it comes to health care. For example, suppose there is a "mandate" that everyone gets a particular vaccine that is new and relatively untested.


The vaccine thing has been in place for decades. All medicines and vaccines were tested by the bastards selling them; again, that's been the way for decades. I had to have a tetanus shot to take classes at the uni, because it had been more than ten years since I was cut severely enough to require medical attention. Those born after 70-something had to get at least three more shots than I did.

But in this country parents can still avoid vaccines for their kids, but only if Jesus told them so. It's true. That is a legal option, but anything on medical grounds isn't.

BTW, nice cave you've been living in, there.

I'm glad you came through the cancer experience OK. Not everyone knows to do what you did, to at least consider other options. But every day, some people die from ignoring medical advice, and some others die from taking medical advice.

quote:

Had I been under this new health care program, I don't think I would have had that much say so in the matter.


Oh really?

Is there anything in this new law that would mandate that you submit to the procedure your doctor tried to talk you into? Please describe that part of the new law for us, if you would.

The doctors made the last two years of my mother's life an incessant misery, cost my dad his right eye, one of them outright killed a good friend of mine's mother because he was too stupid to read her medical history thoroughly enough before changing her dosage of a medication ...

And all that was under the old regime. Explain to us here how it could be any worse than that. I mean, aside all the people who can't afford our 50% over-priced health care or the exorbitant insurance to cover it.

"Not a fan" here, you might say. But they (the victims) just did what they were told, as the average person would.

For the average person, what a doctor says and what the insurance companies say are a mandate. All that was under the old regime.

But welcome to the club; there are certainly many others that have no issue being bullied by corporations, even to the point of screaming that the government should quit bullying the corporations into quit bullying society.

So here we are, millions of lost jobs and lost houses later ...

I'm glad that you can pay for all your own medical visits, but you still paid 50% more for that than a person in the next-highest health cost country would have paid. I'm glad you're happy with that, but I hope that you understand that not everybody might be as happy as you for that situation.


PS

Of course this law isn't very good. There was an actually half-decent proposal to begin with, but the Republicans didn't like that, so a POS law is what we have now. The theory is that after suffering a couple of years through this POS law, we'll eventually decide to catch up with the rest of the most developed economies and do it the right way.

But this country definitely hates its own citizens more than any other developed country I know of, so I'm not as sanguine as some others on the prospect of ever getting anything actually useful to society out of this.






ClassIsInSession -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/5/2012 11:24:02 PM)

quote:

What bothers me more about the health care law is all of the non-related health care crap that got stuffed into it.


Explain that.


OK example: Starting Jan. 1, 2012, small businesses and self-employed people will have to issue 1099 forms, which are used to track and report the miscellaneous income associated with services rendered by independent contractors or self-employed individuals, for every vendor with whom they do more than $600 business in a calendar year.

What exactly does that have to do with healthcare?


quote:

I don't like the mandate, because as a free society, nothing should be mandated.


Traffic lights, education, building codes, a ton of other things, have been mandated for some decades now.


Public education leaves quite a lot to be desired. And you have to pony up taxes to support it even if you don't attend them or have children that do.

quote:

I think in the long term what we will see as a result is an outcry when choices get taken away about the particular course of actions taken when it comes to health care. For example, suppose there is a "mandate" that everyone gets a particular vaccine that is new and relatively untested.


The vaccine thing has been in place for decades. All medicines and vaccines were tested by the bastards selling them; again, that's been the way for decades. I had to have a tetanus shot to take classes at the uni, because it had been more than ten years since I was cut severely enough to require medical attention. Those born after 70-something had to get at least three more shots than I did.

But in this country parents can still avoid vaccines for their kids, but only if Jesus told them so. It's true. That is a legal option, but anything on medical grounds isn't.

BTW, nice cave you've been living in, there.

I'm glad you came through the cancer experience OK. Not everyone knows to do what you did, to at least consider other options. But every day, some people die from ignoring medical advice, and some others die from taking medical advice.


I never brought religion into the discussion, but the use of themerosol in vaccines has been widely criticized by even some groups of Doctors (many of which are jewish not Christian so I guess your Jesus argument just left the building) Also, there is very little evidence to support that all vaccines prevent the diseases they are supposed to. Flu shots being a great case for that. I've read quite a lot of research on it and have decided not to ever get a flu shot. I've not had a flu in a very long time. What I do believe is that Vit. D3 in the winter helps prevent colds and flus, and Canada agrees enough with that view to have looked at using it instead of the flu vaccine. How many approved by the FDA medications have later been recalled because they were found to be unsafe? (Scientifically not religiously)

quote:

Had I been under this new health care program, I don't think I would have had that much say so in the matter.


Oh really?

Is there anything in this new law that would mandate that you submit to the procedure your doctor tried to talk you into? Please describe that part of the new law for us, if you would.

The doctors made the last two years of my mother's life an incessant misery, cost my dad his right eye, one of them outright killed a good friend of mine's mother because he was too stupid to read her medical history thoroughly enough before changing her dosage of a medication ...

"Not a fan" here, you might say. But they (the victims) just did what they were told, as the average person would.

For the average person, what a doctor says and what the insurance companies say are a mandate.

But welcome to the club; there are certainly many others that have no issue being bullied by corporations, even to the point of screaming that the government should quit bullying the corporations into quit bullying society.

So here we are, millions of lost jobs and lost houses later ...

I'm glad that you can pay for all your own medical visits, but you still paid 50% more for that than a person in the next-highest health cost country would have paid. I'm glad you're happy with that, but I hope that you understand that not everybody might be as happy as you for that situation.


Apparently you haven't read about the "panels" in the law that decide what course of action you're be told to take medically? It's pretty blatant if you bother to read the law. Perhaps the most underreported and, until recently, least discussed aspect of the Affordable Care Act is IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. This 15-person unelected panel has yet to be selected; however, it will be a key to the success of Obamacare. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been quoted as saying that the majority of IPAB members must not be medical practitioners.

PS

Of course this law isn't very good. There was an actually half-decent proposal to begin with, but the Republicans didn't like that, so a POS law is what we have now. The theory is that after suffering a couple of years through this POS law, we'll eventually decide to catch up with the rest of the most developed economies and do it the right way.

But this country definitely hates its own citizens more than any other developed country I know of, so I'm not as sanguine as some others on the prospect of ever getting anything actually useful to society out of this.


And I agree with you. Between the crony capitalists on the R side of the aisle and the Socialist leaning extremists on the L side, I don't think much good will come out of it.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/6/2012 6:27:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

OK example: Starting Jan. 1, 2012, small businesses and self-employed people will have to issue 1099 forms, which are used to track and report the miscellaneous income associated with services rendered by independent contractors or self-employed individuals, for every vendor with whom they do more than $600 business in a calendar year.

What exactly does that have to do with healthcare?



Ive already had to do that for a couple of years. (small businessman here)




Musicmystery -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/6/2012 6:38:33 AM)

quote:

small businesses and self-employed people will have to issue 1099 forms, which are used to track and report the miscellaneous income associated with services rendered by independent contractors or self-employed individuals, for every vendor with whom they do more than $600 business in a calendar year.


I've been doing that since 1980.

[8|]

Trust me, the world will go on.

What does it have to do with health care? Nothing. It has to do with insisting that health care come from businesses. A poor system--but that's the way it evolved, and that's what Americans are clinging to.




FirmhandKY -> RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional (7/6/2012 6:56:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I saw Firm lurking.........


He was a huge supporter of the chief justice a while back......


Actually complimented buusshhhhh on making a great choice.......


Wonder what thinks about Justice Roberts now?[;)]

Au contraire, mon amie.

I don't think I've said anything about Roberts, of substance. At least I couldn't find anything when I searched the archives.

As far as to what my opinion is now ... nothing has changed.

I tend to take a longer view about things than many do, almost on a historical basis. I'm not a legal scholar, but I do know that many questions of whether or not a law is "Constitutional" has changed over the years. Whether or not this is one such case will be interesting to watch.

It appears that Roberts upheld it on a very narrow line of logic (and one of the three that was advanced by the government).

I was happy to see him eviscerate the commerce clause argument. That holds the potential of roll back a lot of Federal power, which is a "good thing", although it may take decades, and may never happen, depending on events.

At the end of the day, we do get the government and society we deserve, I think.

Firm




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125