We are screwed

[RAM_Designs 5,000+ posts]

mashed. Baked. I could go either way, really. I'm crazy like that.

po-ta-to

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

po-tah-toe

 

[filtor1 10+ year member]

I rarely post on the forums anymore, but felt like I wanted to add to this. The assrape of the country began in the 1930's. Many of us saw this coming, and there is nothing we can do but adapt. Leaving the country is not an option. We may be in the shit, but have you looked around at the alternatives. Not pretty. This legislation is "necessarily" horrible. Blah, blah, blah, add repetitious support here. I, like many of my friends, have become apathetic to the processes our government uses to push their overwhelming agenda of control. The laws pertaining to the creation of a monopoly seem to be overlooked for the "greater good" of the citizens. We have elected people that see the road to a government so big the people have no choice but to accept it. We got what the collective has asked for. This legislation will bring about the economic downfall of our financial system. You only thought it was bad before. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

And for those that are curious, I have my degree in Economics. I am no expert. In fact, the more I learned, the more I realized what I didn't know. But I just spent the past 4 years of my life learning about the impacts of legislation on both regional and global economies.

 

[filtor1 10+ year member]

And I too like potatoes.

 

[ciaonzo 5,000+ posts]

I could survive a potato famine in the U.S.S.A.

 

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

There is no doubt that Congress can regulate an entire array of economic activities. For example, there is no problem, Constitutionally with having Congress regulate health care insurance purchase transactions. The problem with an individual insurance purchase mandate, however, is that it does not regulate any transactions at all. It regulates human beings, simply because they exist, and orders them to engage in certain types of economic transactions. Getting health insurance and goods and services is an economic activity, which Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause, but a decision not to purchase insurance or not to acquire any other good or service is not an economic activity, and is not subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause.

Dave Rivkin, a member of the District of Columbia Bar and the Council on Foreign Relations, has thoroughly shot down Erwin Chemerinsky's view on the matter in a previous debate regarding the issue. Chemerinsky states "Congress under the commerce clause can require an economic transaction and enforce that requirement as appropriate. This gives Congress no power to regulate outside of the area of economic transactions." Chemerinsky suggests that "If I decide to buy or not buy something, that is economic activity". Obviously, if this were the case, one could logically argue that any purchase a citizen decides to opt out of, be it a health club membership, car insurance, not buying a home, choosing not to buy a pack of cigarettes, etc, is considered an economic activity as it effects commerce, and therefore subject to Congressional regulation. As far as I know, it is illegal to purchase health insurance across state lines. If this ever gets in the hands of the Supreme Court, they would obviously rule that such individual mandates as unconstitutional.

I should add that you sometimes see the argument "Most states now require automobile insurance as a condition for driving." as reasoning that there is no right to not have insurance . This point of course holds no water, as purchase of a car is required in the first place, which is a transaction an individual can choose to opt out of completely.

 

[GabeC 10+ year member]

I support the bill. Bill Murray that is.

this

 

[Jeremy M 10+ year member]

I believe this bill is on a state to state basis...being that not all states will participate in this. And if i remember correctly there are 17 states that are trying/will be suing the goverment stating it's unconstitutional.

can anyone confirm this?

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

I think florida's suing.

 

[sundownz Pro Seller]

does this mean sundown's going out of business now? lulz.

No I don't think so *laughs* Why ?

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

March 22, 2010

Where Were You When the Republic Died?

By Matt Patterson

In November 2008, Americans elected a socialist as their president. In March 2010, they woke up stunned to find themselves living in a socialist country.

Health insurers -- once private companies -- are now organs of the federal government. Every citizen is a ward of the state, which can now compel you to have insurance, punish you if you don't; determine if your insurance is acceptable, punish you if it isn't. Thousands of new federal bureaucrats will soon spill from the D.C. Beltway and flood the country, scrutinizing our finances to verify compliance with this new law.

A government that grants itself this kind of power over us can conceivably do anything to us. For our own good, of course. Such a country is in no meaningful sense "free."

And this is only the beginning. Liberals are salivating in contemplation of all the fanciful window trimmings that can in the future be hung from this legislative framework. Public option will soon appear as prelude to single payer, as was the intent all along. Soon, Americans won't even have the illusion of a choice -- the government will move from subsidizer to provider, and it will be the only game in town.

So what's next? Some look to the states as possible saviors. Please. The states long ago surrendered their sovereignty, and they are now junkies on federal monies, which they need for schools, roads, Medicaid, and much else. If the citizens are now wards of the federal government, then the states long since preceded them in that sorry servitude.

The individual? What are we going to do, not pay the taxes to support this beast? Oh, they'll take that from you before you ever get your check; we gave them that power to them long ago, remember. March on Washington, en masse? Lot of good that's done thus far.

The Republicans? Assuming the GOP can take back both houses of Congress and the White House in the next couple of elections (by no means a sure thing), can you name one gigantic entitlement enacted by liberals that Republicans have successfully repealed? Or even made serious effort to repeal? Ever? Anyone?

The Courts? Sure, maybe Obamacare will work its way through the courts, and maybe the Supreme Court will finally take up the case (there is no guarantee of that, remember), and maybe the Court will not have tilted left by then, and maybe the Justices will declare it unconstitutional. Then what? Who will enforce this decision? Obamacare is already unconstitutional on its face, and yet it is the law of the land. Do you think the Democrats will say, "Oh, all-right, never mind," and cheerfully strike it from the books after their successful five-decades-long crusade?

And even if a court challenge is eventually successful, how much of the bureaucracy will by then already be in place, how many of the thousands of new regulations already in effect, how much of the billions in new taxes and fines collected, how many jobs killed, how many middle class families addicted to the entitlement?

There's a reason why Democrats were desperate to ram this through at any cost -- once enacted, such things are all but perpetual. Former freedom-loving peoples begin to tell themselves that it's really not so bad. Sure, government is forcing you to eat state-approved gruel, but hey, at least they hold the spoon, and they even pour a little sugar on top when you're good.

The worst part of watching the proceedings unfold on Sunday was the endless stream of commentators and pundits calmly discussing this bill as if it were just one more piece of bad legislation that we will have to live under. In fact, what has transpired is nothing less than an overthrow of the old Constitutional order.

In 1776, the American Republic boldly announced its birth with the Declaration of Independence. In 2010, it quietly expired with a declaration of dependence -- on government, on entitlement, and on the Democratic party.

We're stuck with it now, whether you like it or not.

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

No I don't think so *laughs* Why ?

someone was babbling earlier about small businesses getting hit hard. Thats all.

 

[silenkiller 10+ year member]

someone was babbling earlier about small businesses getting hit hard. Thats all.

Because, you know, all small businesses are the same. What a deep grasp on common sense you have sir.

 

[audioimpactxx]

Tanning Tax -- 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services.

hahahahhah

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

I am a customer. I pay a business for a service upon my need for it on a monthly bases. When I need service, I contact the business to provide me the service I have paid for. They deny me service for whatever reason they deem fit. Would you seek justice through the legal system? Would you expect the government to step in an stop this business from mistreating its customers?
This in a nutshell is how the health insurance companies have been operating for years. You pay premiums, but are not guaranteed service no matter how healthy you are. Become chronically ill? not their problem. Have a special needs child? not their problem. You can live healthy, eat healthy, work a good job, do everything right all your life but get chronically ill and have all your hard-earned savings go to medical bills and be broke with the current system. The Government is saying "that's is not right and since you insurance companies won't change we have to step in and protect the public from your practices."

They needed regulation, they have been operating in a corrupt manner comparable to the Mob and loan sharks. Is the current healthcare bill perfect? no way. Is it better than the current situation? By and large. I work in the healthcare industry and see patients leave their family in terrible debt just because they got sick unexpectedly

It isn't just "insurance" that is ran this way, Medicare denies more services than insurance. Didn't Medicare just get around a 20% cut as well?