If this helps one person get health care that doesn't have it now I am willing to pay the seemingly minimal taxes that I will have to pay to accomplish that. I am not selfish and self centered like the people that are against this bill.

 

Of course I want health care for everyone. Who doesn't? Still, I think this the health care act is extraordinarily poorly planned and written as a law. How does being against bad legislation make me self centered? Please explain.

 

The "No Child Left Behind" act had a good intention, no doubt. Terrible piece of legislation though. I'm sure that you as a systematically anti-Republican would agree with that. Am I self centered for "not wanting to take care of children's educations"?

Of course I want health care for everyone. Who doesn't? Still, I think this the health care act is extraordinarily poorly planned and written as a law. How does being against bad legislation make me self centered? Please explain.

 

The "No Child Left Behind" act had a good intention, no doubt. Terrible piece of legislation though. I'm sure that you as a systematically anti-Republican would agree with that. Am I self centered for "not wanting to take care of children's educations"?

Ok how would you change it so that everyone can afford to have health care .

I am not anti- Republican nor am I pro- Democrat . I am a very independant voter

Ok how would you change it so that everyone can afford to have health care?

 

I'll readily admit that I don't have the answer to that.

 

However, before you give me a "well then what else are we to do than to pass the act as currently written" response, I'll ask you - where has there ever been a universal health care system that was successful?

And as a Catholic I too will fight the abortion and birth control mandate as it is written?

 

I'd like to hear your plans for fighting this. You are an adamant supporter of Barack Obama and the majority of the Democratic politicians that have made their way into discussions here on BGP. Barack Obama and those Democrats are adamant supporters (and the AUTHORS) of laws promoting and funding abortion. Barack Obama has specifically developed an agenda of increasing the accessibility of abortion. You consistently give verbal support to these politicians. I would assume you vote accordingly. Assuming you give the politicians your vote, aren't you thereby voting for pro-abortion legislation? How are you fight the abortion and birth control mandate?

If we all assume that there will always be Catholic teens and single adult females becoming pregnant does the fact that providing contraceptives will likely result in less abortions make it any more palatable?

 

If we have to prioritize and if we all admit we're never going to get EVERYTHING we want wouldn't less abortions be the top priority?

I'd like to hear your plans for fighting this. You are an adamant supporter of Barack Obama and the majority of the Democratic politicians that have made their way into discussions here on BGP. Barack Obama and those Democrats are adamant supporters (and the AUTHORS) of laws promoting and funding abortion. Barack Obama has specifically developed an agenda of increasing the accessibility of abortion. You consistently give verbal support to these politicians. I would assume you vote accordingly. Assuming you give the politicians your vote, aren't you thereby voting for pro-abortion legislation? How are you fight the abortion and birth control mandate?

I'll do what ever the Church asks me to do to get this provision defeated as it pertains to the Catholic Church and its institutions . by the way I supported McCain . So don't presume that you know how I will vote on any issue .

I'll do what ever the Church asks me to do to get this provision defeated as it pertains to the Catholic Church and its institutions. by the way I supported McCain. So don't presume that you know how I will vote on any issue.

 

I admitted to be basing my statement on voting by your verbal support of democratic politicians. I don't see anything overly-presumptuous about assuming that someone who provides consistent verbal support for democrats and consistent condemnation of republicans will vote accordingly.

 

If the Church asked you to vote pro-life, would you vote for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama for president?

Obama didn't lie . He didn't think it was a tax . Only a majority on the Supreme court does , and it only affects someone if they don't get some form of health insurance so basically it will be a self imposed "tax" on those who don't .

 

For multiple reasons this was not characterized as a 'tax'. Political, legal, etc. Hence the attempt to 'force' action through the Commerce Clause.

 

The Solicitor General did indicate in arguments that considering the mandate as a tax was the possible last resort to keep it legal. The SG kept avoiding the 'tax' word but the court justices knew what it was during orals it appears.

 

See here:

 

ObamaCare At The Supreme Court, Day One: Is The Mandate A Tax, Or Not?

 

 

 

In the health care law, Congress called the required payment a penalty rather than a tax. But the penalty is contained in the Internal Revenue Code, and the health care law says it is to be “assessed and collected in the same manner” as a tax.

 

....

 

There were other complications. Mr. Verrilli’s argument that the penalty is not a tax for purposes of the 1867 law was in potential tension with one he will make on Tuesday, that the mandate was authorized not only by Congress’s power under the commerce clause but also by its power to levy taxes.

 

 

“Today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said. “Tomorrow you will be back and arguing that the penalty is a tax.”

 

 

Note - "Tomorrow" was literal since they knew the agenda and flow of the 3 days of orals. See below for summary.

 

 

ObamaCare At The Supreme Court, Day Two: The Mandate Under The Microscope

 

The tax argument seemed to lack force, and Verrilli used it primarily as just a backup.

 

 

So if this was not a tax, never a tax and never considered a tax why does it a) behave exactly like a tax and b) why did the SG argue it as a tax on day 2 of oral arguments.

 

If the SG had not used the tax argument at SCOTUS then the Dems who voted for this may be able to play dumb. But 'their guy' argued it was a tax to have a backup in case the court invalidated the mandate under the Commerce Clause. The court did exactly that. If the SG does not bring the taxing authority into the argument then the mandate goes down and the laws dies.

 

All the "its not a tax" statements from 2009 do not nullify that in the end the ability to tax was the only straw this hung on. And the SG presented that argument. So he made the bed that all those who voted for this or signed it into law must now lie in.

I admitted to be basing my statement on voting by your verbal support of democratic politicians. I don't see anything overly-presumptuous about assuming that someone who provides consistent verbal support for democrats and consistent condemnation of republicans will vote accordingly.

 

If the Church asked you to vote pro-life, would you vote for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama for president?

I always vote pro-life

I digress. I think the act was rushed and is poorly planned/written legislation. Additionally, it envelops major moral dilemma for Catholics, which I obviously take personal issue with. I also have problems with the fact that so many people will have their healthcare provided for them while costs are driven up and transferred to others.

I always vote pro-life

 

Fair enough.

I'll do what ever the Church asks me to do to get this provision defeated as it pertains to the Catholic Church and its institutions . by the way I supported McCain . So don't presume that you know how I will vote on any issue .

 

Much like C_W_B shouldn't presume how you will vote, you shouldn't presume that my opposition to ObamaCare is based on being self centered and selfish. Fair enough?

 

There are legitimate philosophical differences here. I'm not a "it takes a village" kind of person. I don't believe that the govt should be able to force me, by the taking of my property, to help my fellow man. If I decide to do it, it should be via my own free will. I don't believe that govt entitlements over the long run are good for the down trodden, but believe they actually hurt the down troddenover the long run. I believe that the more the govt takes care of people, the less important the importance of personal responsibility and the institutions of family and church become. I believe that there is growing segment of Americans that have either become dependent on govt entitlements or are simply willing to get by on govt entitlements and have little desire to work.

 

That is why I am opposed to ObamaCare and other govt entitlement programs. I don't think that is being selfish or self-centered, but if you do, so be it.

Much like C_W_B shouldn't presume how you will vote, you shouldn't presume that my opposition to ObamaCare is based on being self centered and selfish. Fair enough?

 

There are legitimate philosophical differences here. I'm not a "it takes a village" kind of person. I don't believe that the govt should be able to force me, by the taking of my property, to help my fellow man. If I decide to do it, it should be via my own free will. I don't believe that govt entitlements over the long run are good for the down trodden, but believe they actually hurt the down troddenover the long run. I believe that the more the govt takes care of people, the less important the importance of personal responsibility and the institutions of family and church become. I believe that there is growing segment of Americans that have either become dependent on govt entitlements or are simply willing to get by on govt entitlements and have little desire to work.

 

That is why I am opposed to ObamaCare and other govt entitlement programs. I don't think that is being selfish or self-centered, but if you do, so be it.

 

Obviously, you can't be 100% against "it takes a village," right? You're not completely against taxes being used for the betterment of society, right?

Obviously, you can't be 100% against "it takes a village," right? You're not completely against taxes being used for the betterment of society, right?

 

:popcorn:

 

I can not wait for the response to this one....