By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 24 June 2012
Edit Thread
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

No system is perfect, but i'd rather have a guarantee of care than the "screw you, kid" i'm about to get because of Roberts, his gang of crooks, and the death-dealing American insurance companies.

Care to trade?

Oh come now.  I know it might effect you personally,

but there is no doubt, that like citizens united it's a

"I don't think it's a good idea, but leagally it's sound."

If you want to argue that the supreme court should consider the effects of there actions and not just the constitution that's one thing....

but to call them crooks because they made a pure obvious constiutional call... I'd say that's the EXACT opposite of being a crook.

There's huge precedent of government involvement in health care and how health insurance, despite not being tradable over state lines, is a huge interstate issue. This one's commerce clause, plain and simple, and it's judicial activism from social darwinists who think that the constitution somehow enumerates property rights that never really existed in the first place to strike this law down. Not that Roberts and that mouth-breathing warlock Scalia care, they're rich, so what matters how the peons suffer for the social darwinist cause?

Dude, we've been over this before... and as I remember... it went from you argueing that I was using a slippery slope arguement to using a slippery slope arguement as to why it wouldn't be abused.  After you never responded to Badgenome i'd just had figured you realized you were wrong and had no arguement against it.

There is no gurantee people will use healthcare services, therefore it is unconsitutional  to mandate insurance.

It's that simple.

Unlike car insurance, where car insurance is specifically tied to driving a car which is a priveledge.(and also done by on a a state.  Which isn't bount like the federal government.  Actually that's likely why it is done on the state level.  The Fed couldn't do it.)

Unless your arguement is... people have to pay money for the right to live.

To say this ruling is constituional is to say there is no right to life... or really, anything.