Export thread

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03virginia.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Now, I am NOT a lawyer, but the article did present some interesting stuff. I don't think they have a chance to win, but it will be interesting to see how the court handle this.

Now I try to follow the health care for a bit (I think it could have done better) but didn't the Administration use a loophole to pass the bill instead of the normal passage?

Now my question would be to the lawyer of the forum (I think we have some right?) do Virginia has a chance? I mean Virginia did have a law, and I know that Federal can trump State Law, but how far can they (Federal) go? how much power does State have to uphold their own law?

Good, this here OBAMAHussienCare is ruining Ameerika, we don't need no universal hitler care.

Though there are probably legal standings that may make this iffy, the bill i hate because the pussy democrats tried so hard to fellate the repubs for votes and all they ended up with was a watered down shit bill, and still no repub votes.

crono1224 said:

Good, this here OBAMAHussienCare is ruining Ameerika, we don't need no universal hitler care.

Though there are probably legal standings that may make this iffy, the bill i hate because the pussy democrats tried so hard to fellate the repubs for votes and all they ended up with was a watered down shit bill, and still no repub votes.

Click to expand...

Damn Republicans not giving Democrats the scapegoat votes they needed.

Chibibar said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03virginia.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Now, I am NOT a lawyer, but the article did present some interesting stuff. I don't think they have a chance to win, but it will be interesting to see how the court handle this.

Now I try to follow the health care for a bit (I think it could have done better) but didn't the Administration use a loophole to pass the bill instead of the normal passage?

Click to expand...

They used congressional protocols to bypass the filibuster but it wasn't a loophole.

Now my question would be to the lawyer of the forum (I think we have some right?) do Virginia has a chance? I mean Virginia did have a law, and I know that Federal can trump State Law, but how far can they (Federal) go? how much power does State have to uphold their own law?

Click to expand...

There is allot of precedent that where state laws oppose federal laws it is never the federal laws that are overturned. For example California has laws that legalize pot however DEA and FBI agents keep on raiding and arresting the medical marijuana centers. Nor is it ilegal for governments to demand people buy insurance as shown by numerous laws that demand that all drivers have auto insurance. Of course this will not matter to Virginia because this is a pure vote gathering measure.

Dubyamn said:

Of course this will not matter to Virginia because this is a pure vote gathering measure.

Click to expand...

It all boils down to this right here. No longer is homophobia or abortion the vote getting issues they used to be.

It's a shame no one knows what is actually in the health care bill. People might not be so bent out of shape over it if they did.

Covar;423294][QUOTE=crono1224 said:

Good, this here OBAMAHussienCare is ruining Ameerika, we don't need no universal hitler care.

Though there are probably legal standings that may make this iffy, the bill i hate because the pussy democrats tried so hard to fellate the repubs for votes and all they ended up with was a watered down shit bill, and still no repub votes.

Click to expand...

Damn Republicans not giving Democrats the scapegoat votes they needed.[/QUOTE]

I don't blame the repubs they did what they wanted i blame the totally inept democrats that require 100% majority in order to pass anything they actually really want.

Krisken said:

It's a shame no one knows what is actually in the health care bill. People might not be so bent out of shape over it if they did.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's totally a blast spending way more money than we have to bloat government to give it de facto control over 17 percent of our economy that requires people to buy insurance or pay a punitive tax, while requiring insurance companies to sell in such a way that it forces rate hikes, all the while doing absolutely nothing to address the true underlying problem: the cost of health care.

I should probably edit my statement. It's too bad people like Gas go out of their way to not know what is in the bill, or they might not get so bent out of shape over it.

Krisken said:

I should probably edit my statement. It's too bad people like Gas go out of their way to not know what is in the bill, or they might not get so bent out of shape over it.

Click to expand...

So are you saying you've read all 2000-someodd pages an have a full grasp of what they all mean? Or are you "going out of your way not to know what's in the bill" by just relying on what other analysts tell us, like the rest of us?

GasBandit;423304][QUOTE=Krisken said:

It's a shame no one knows what is actually in the health care bill. People might not be so bent out of shape over it if they did.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's totally a blast spending way more money than we have to bloat government to give it de facto control over 17 percent of our economy that requires people to buy insurance or pay a punitive tax, while requiring insurance companies to sell in such a way that it forces rate hikes, all the while doing absolutely nothing to address the true underlying problem: the cost of health care.[/QUOTE]

GasBandit;423316][QUOTE=Krisken said:

I should probably edit my statement. It's too bad people like Gas go out of their way to not know what is in the bill, or they might not get so bent out of shape over it.

Click to expand...

So are you saying you've read all 2000-someodd pages an have a full grasp of what they all mean? Or are you "going out of your way not to know what's in the bill" by just relying on what other analysts tell us, like the rest of us?[/QUOTE]
What can I say? I'm going to believe the AHIMA over Glenn Beck.

Krisken;423328][QUOTE=GasBandit;423316][QUOTE=Krisken said:

I should probably edit my statement. It's too bad people like Gas go out of their way to not know what is in the bill, or they might not get so bent out of shape over it.

Click to expand...

So are you saying you've read all 2000-someodd pages an have a full grasp of what they all mean? Or are you "going out of your way not to know what's in the bill" by just relying on what other analysts tell us, like the rest of us?[/QUOTE]
What can I say? I'm going to believe the AHIMA over Glenn Beck.[/QUOTE]
An organization whose bread and butter is preparing training courses for confusing aspects of health care, and sending paperwork in circles likes Obamacare? Color me surprised.

I think you just nullified all of your possible points by using the term obamacare.

Contrary to Obama apologists' desires, "Obamacare" is not the new Darwin's Law.

It is merely another terrible term, in league with adding -gate to everything. It is stupid and if you wanted to be lazy you could say health care passed under obama. Unless you are able to say totally that 100% of the bill was created in majority by Obama then its not really his bill.

crono1224 said:

I think you just nullified all of your possible points by using the term obamacare.

Click to expand...

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

If that term makes ones points null and void then I guess you guys should avoid NPR like the plague. Stupid Glenn Beck loving NPR.


Or maybe it's just a cultural term that people get. Naaaaaaaaah.

Espy said:

If that term makes ones points null and void then I guess you guys should avoid NPR like the plague. Stupid Glenn Beck loving NPR.


Or maybe it's just a cultural term that people get. Naaaaaaaaah.

Click to expand...

What do they refrence to glen beck, and how is it a cultural term at all? It is a way to some how equate a bad president with bad health care bill, by providing info about neither. He was not the majority creator in it, he couldn't have passed it without votes of the congress, it is in no way obamacare there are many other terms that would better describe it than that.

Much as I find the term manipulative and dishonest, there is a grain of truth to it. Like it or not, this will be a crucial part of the Obama legacy (among other things). It's his party, [STRIKE]he can cry if he wants to,[/STRIKE] he's in charge, and a President should not be able to pick and choose in aftermath what he'll be responsible for, much as they're used to blaming their predecessor, a practice which probably goes back to at least Thomas Jefferson.

You can argue all you want, it's part of the cultural vernacular whether or not you like it and it's used by people on both sides of the aisle no matter how much that frustrates you. It's not derogatory, nor disparaging in any way so I really don't understand why people here (the only place I've ever heard anyone get upset over the term used) get so upset when it's used.
'
(And I have no idea what you meant when you wrote this: "What do they refrence to glen beck"??? I said NPR commentators and hosts use the term on a pretty regular basis, to which I made a joke about them being "glenn beck lovers". They never *actually* referenced Glenn Beck...)

GasBandit said:

Contrary to Obama apologists' desires, "Obamacare" is not the new Darwin's Law.

Click to expand...

You mean Godwin.

It's a word used to promote ignorance. If you really want to excuse ignorance and call it "cultural vernacular", than by all means go for it. Just don't expect me to go along with it.

Like I said, it's fine if thats your opinion, I'll go with NPR's usage of the word though. I think they understand the correct cultural usage of the term without having to weigh it down with the negatives you associate it with. Also I appreciate how that doesn't stop them from having a good discussion on the issue.

escushion;423369][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

Contrary to Obama apologists' desires, "Obamacare" is not the new Darwin's Law.

Click to expand...

You mean Godwin.[/QUOTE]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Nice catch.

I guess. I don't listen to NPR, and haven't heard a discussion where someone used the word "Obamacare" with the intent of having a reasoned discussion on the healthcare bill. Until I do, I'm going to assume the person saying it isn't interested in a real discussion but intends to use the word as a negative.

Not to pick sides here but I feel I should point out that many people say "Obamacare" with the same venom that others use when they say "Reaganomics". It IS a purgative, or at the very least is often used as one, and it is a very good indicator of where a conversation will go anytime it crops up.

"Obamacare" was invented to get the tea party's dick hard. Fact.

escushion;423369][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

Contrary to Obama apologists' desires, "Obamacare" is not the new Darwin's Law.

Click to expand...

You mean Godwin.[/QUOTE]

Ya got me, pilgrim.

Dubyamn said:

Nor is it ilegal for governments to demand people buy insurance as shown by numerous laws that demand that all drivers have auto insurance.

Click to expand...

Well, I think there's a significant difference here: with auto insurance, the government says "you need it if you want to drive."

With health insurance, the government simply says "you need it."

With auto insurance, there's a significant, if unrealistic, choice involved. With health insurance, the government is just telling you to buy a product, flat out.

But hey, at least we've solved the problem of not enough people having health insurance by making it illegal to not buy health insurance. Next, we can solve the problem of world hunger by making it illegal to not eat.