Another win for the great one......... (companies, voted, constitutional, tax)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, we treat our prisoners and others better than our citizens. What do you think?
I think if you want to be told every waking moment of your life what you should do, how you should do it, stay at home living with mommy, or go to jail. Let the rest of us productive citizens alone!!!
Again, we treat our prisoners and others better than our citizens.
We provide prisoners a certain duty of care because of the specific nature of their current condition which is currently beyond their agency. These individuals were, in substance, effectively kidnapped (for purposes of justice fulfillment). As such, they are forced into a condition where they cannot reasonably be expected to help themselves due to the level of imposed extreme subservience and custody at the hands of those charged with guarding them.
That condition is not present for most adults outside those aforementioned circumstances, and where that condition can be said to exist for children or others [including some adults] who are under guardianship [e.g. due to mental or physical defects of various forms that lead to some kind of short or long term diminished capacity] who are effectively in the same position, the duty of care thrust upon the parent or guardian is substantively equivalent to that of the jailer in that both parties are assumed to have an obligation to provide a minimum degree of care to the person under their charge.
Why would we want to conflate the ethical and moral rules for your average adult, with either of the very narrowly constrained circumstances mentioned above, if that conflation somehow implied that all parties should be given an equal duty of care, even though their circumstances are radically different. It is that difference which gives rise to the reason why we treat these radically disparate groups differently - and long have (to varying degrees - even though it is true that in the past, prisons were often subject to rather serious neglect, that may be attributable to an inconsistent deviation from this distinction), for good reason).
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 11-08-2011 at 02:54 PM..
The individual mandate and the shared responsibility payment create different legal obligations, for different categories of people, at different times. The mandate–described as the “requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage” in the statute–imposes a legal obligation on “applicable individual[s]” to purchase and maintain minimum health care coverage from an insurance company for each month beginning January 2014. Foreign citizens, illegal aliens, prisoners, and those who qualify for religious exemptions are not considered “applicable individual[s].”
Again, we treat our prisoners and others better than our citizens. What do you think?
great, I think this would be a great time to drop all medical insurance from all prisoners except life taking diseases. all medicine should only be giving at the prison, and not outside of the hospital. think of all the millions of dollars that would be saved by the american taxpayers.
the point being, the goverment both state and federal are held responsible for care of prisoners while they are in their care. once they are out, they are not.
the goverment is not responsible for any free citizens care.
"It claimed that the insurance mandate is unconstitutional because it forces Americans to buy a product for the rest of their lives and that it violates the religious freedom of those who choose not to have insurance because they rely on God to protect them from harm."
Just what Pat Robertson did, when he needed a heart surgery. Fools.
Did you ever consider it "racist" on your end that you are automatically equating ghetto with black? Considering Backspace never brought up Obama's race.
And that's why I asked which kind of ghetto he meant.
I'm unfamiliar with the white ghettos or mixed-race ghettos that OP supposedly could have been associating Obama with.
Anyway, from OP's CD history, it's no mystery what he meant.
Judge Laurence Silberman the conservative judge who struck down D.C.'s gun ban ruled in favor of the Affordable Health Care Act.
Says, the Journal, correctly, “The D.C. Circuit’s rulings traditionally get particularly close attention from the Supreme Court, in part because four of the justices—including Chief Justice John Roberts—previously sat in that circuit.” The killer aspect of Silberman’s opinion isn’t merely that he voted the wrong way, it’s that it’s an (almost) unqualified endorsement of the most expansive possible reading of the Commerce Clause. Which, in fairness, is in line with Supreme Court precedent. A choice quote from Time, which notes that Silberman was overheard scoffing at the anti-ObamaCare position even during oral arguments:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
conservative leaning court upholds obamacare
