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.
In other threads, people say it isn't a tax, its a fee. Here, when challenged against the constitution, its just another tax.
Ok, fine. Its a tax. What happened to Obamas promise for no new taxes?
I am specifically talking about my opinion of the preceded set in Wickard V Filburn and how it might apply in this case, and honestly I do not care what other people on other threads say.
And they could regulate sleep, because if you are sleeping, you're not engaging in commerce, and thus hurt the economy.
It is this very idea that is being used by Zeke Emanuel and others in the Obama administration to hold health care back from old people. If you can't contribute because nobody will hire you because of age you shouldn't get the first shot at medical care. That is what they are implying should be the case.
Doesn't matter...Again read Wickard V. Filburn. There was no interstate commerce there...in fact there was no real commerce there, what there was was an absence of commerce that the government implied would have occurred if Filburn had not violated the AAA. The ruling of the court stated the government could take action to stabilize the price of a market...Your point is only valid if you believe that a group opting not to buy insurance (the uninsured) will not impact the insurance/healthcare market as a whole.
There was commerce taking place under Wickard Vs Filburn. They ruled that the commerce clause was valid then because the wheat COULD cross the state line. If I'm NOT buying insurance, there is NOTHING crossing the state line that would classify as commerce.. THERE IS NO COMMERCE TAKING PLACE..
Gore never asked for a state wide recount of the votes.. Do you want to try to argue again, this time with facts?
You know the answer to your question. THEY just don't know what really did take place, only that there was hanky panky and the Supreme Court had to step in.
There was commerce taking place under Wickard Vs Filburn. They ruled that the commerce clause was valid then because the wheat COULD cross the state line. If I'm NOT buying insurance, there is NOTHING crossing the state line that would classify as commerce.. THERE IS NO COMMERCE TAKING PLACE..
Tell me exactly what commerce was taking place in Wickard Vs Filburn or Gonzales V Raich?
All the people dancing in the streets, might be a problem.
I think that those who really believe this law to be a good one would riot and once it got going the dancers and the rioters would clash. Seriously, I expect to see lefties try to get even for that attempt to take over the control of our lives.
Doesn't matter...Again read Wickard V. Filburn. There was no interstate commerce there...in fact there was no real commerce there, what there was was an absence of commerce that the government implied would have occurred if Filburn had not violated the AAA. The ruling of the court stated the government could take action to stabilize the price of a market...Your point is only valid if you believe that a group opting not to buy insurance (the uninsured) will not impact the insurance/healthcare market as a whole.
You are confusing apples and oranges.
The farmer was not involved in an economic transaction but there most definitely was an interstate market in wheat.
Whereas whether or not you have insurance is an entirely intrastate matter - there is no interstate market for insurance.
Why not exterminate all those who are sick and uninsured?
That would settle the issue for once and for all.
So THIS approach is really what you Libs. have wanted all along.
Thought so!
We all knew you guys were whacked and have NO compassion whatsoever.......and you just care about yourselves and enjoy forcing others to do what you want them to.....for YOU...... or you are fine with exterminating them.
You all TRY to come across as so sympathetic and compassionate.....when it's all just a LIE so your kind can come swoop in and become the parasites you really are.....after the dust has settled.
The elitist, SOB-way imposed upon all.....who you believe are beneath you.
Please read Wickard V. Filburn...That was a primary shift in the view of interstate commerce that occurred in 1942. it states that the government does indeed have the right to regulate commerce in order to stablize the price for a particular commodity even if you are not currently buying anything.
Besides the language of the bill does not even read like that...essentially its a tax on people not buying insurance.
Did you read that one in a class recently or did someone dig it up? As for what that bill is supposed to do we need to look at what it does for unions to see too much of what it really is. Ask old Andy Stern if it isn't part of his latest statemtent, "Workers of the world, unite."
There will come a time when the Court has to reverse a lot of those earlier interstate commerce decisions or they will become completely irrelevant as the left takes over the entire thing.
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.
