zoocrew

No. Because everyone is entitled to believe what they want about spiritual matters. Just like it is not favoritism for some to be given conscientious objector status.

However, it is not a religious objection for everyone. If it is only an economic objection, that is not enough to be given a pass on following the law. I don't think you're following my statements very well.

Yes. Because everyone who has a car is required to have insurance. Everyone who is alive needs health care and can be required to have insurance. No matter how you slice the relevant market, virtually all of it affects interstate commerce, and Congress may constitutionally regulate such interstate economic activity. Few people escape the need to obtain health care at some point in their lives, and most need it regularly. Everyone will eventually have some sort of big emergency bill that, left to their own devices, most individuals would be unable to pay. The health care mandate is li

Not true. If what you are saying is true, then the 11th Court would have agreed with the lower court that said, like you, that if it can't be funded, then the whole thing is invalid. This court didn't say that. Instead, it only struck down the ONE part and left the rest, meaning they decided it can still be implemented. The only way to then implement it is for people to be covered but they don't have to pay, which is an awful way to do it. You don't get it. There are PROVISIONS that allow people to opt out for religious reasons.

But you cannot self insure for the medical needs that you don't know about. If you aren't insured and something happens, the tax payer is on the hook for what you can't pay.

I see. So she had no cost whatsoever for any medical needs during her lifetime? That is very rare. Extremely rare. It would also be very foolish today. Just like I know many people who carry auto insurance but never had an accident.

What the heck are you talking about? You are truly an ass of a man. You are vile and repulsive to anyone who has an ounce of class.

But she did need the health care. Just like you have to carry auto insurance even if you don't plan on an accident.

Not true at all. The requirement that everyone have health care means everyone has to pay. If that part is struck down, it means everyone still has to have it but now the rates for those that can afford it will be much higher to make sure that those who can't afford it get their coverage too. Another stupid, "I don't know what I am talking about" response to a thread that you don't belong in. A mind like yours doesn't understand the consequences of these policies when put upon the people of this country. Parasites on the poor don't want to see downtrodden getting ahead. They're

But the court DID rule that the plan is constitutional except that ONE part. So requiring everyone to have private health care coverage will add trillions to the national debt. OK. I'm going to just walk away after this one. Nothing can be said to bring reality back in the picture.

Uh, yeah. If one is required to have car insurance because it is needed since one has a car, then can't we mandate one is required to have health insurance since one has a need for health care? After all, getting sick is not optional. And the court did let stand the entire remaining portion of the national health care bill.

Was my reply addressed to you? Didn't think so, you are trying to start an argument where there wasn't one. That's not what this court just ruled. But you DID agree that the whole argument about car insurance being required if you do have a car would then MANDATE a REQUIRED health care since everyone does need care. I know. Logic sometimes turns the argument back and it runs all over us.

That's not a very nice post. How does that square with what you said here?My Link

You've GOT to be kidding! Someone needs to understand LOGIC. By the very nature of being alive, health care is necessary. You cannot say that one has the option of driving when one does NOT have the option of being sick or well. The court ruled that EVERY OTHER PART OF THE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE BILL IS CONSTITUTIONAL. Something to think about it. The next court will, hopefully, get the ruling correct on the ONE PART struck down and that was the requirement to have coverage. Being sick is not optional either. You are forced to need health care by the fact of existing.

Terrible ruling. Let's hope the next court rules the right way.

Here's some numbers to think about. Obama took office in January of 2009, in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. In March of 2009, the market was at 6500. (I think that is where is was because I'm going on memory of the interview I watched on CNBC today.) Today the market is up 4000 points. That is a 62% increase in 3 years. Our leaders are not spending us out of the problem but they must spend to jump start things until people start spending. Until we address spending and taxes, we will not solve the problem. It was NOT Obama's stimulus program. That is N

Handmade burgers with grilled fresh veggies (onions, green beans, squash, tomatoes and broccoli).

That family also needs to stop working part time when they have the ability to work more and start making a bigger dent in the debt. Carter had nothing to do with the economic situation. It was going to happen no matter who was in the White House. Every history peice I have read on that era say the same thing, except those political pundits who will say anything to make it fit their agenda. Reaganomics was tax cuts and increased spending. There comes a point where we can't keep spending, right? It doesn't make a good topic because if Obama gets blamed when it goes down, then Obam

So when Obama says things that are campaign rhetoric, is it real or Memorex?

If it fits your version - no matter how twisted it is - it MUST be the truth. Gotcha.

What did your parents say in 1982 when we were in a very similar situation to what we're in now, with high unemployment and government spending going through the roof to unprecedented levels?

Sure sounded like a really personal insult.

Who is the parasite to whom you are referring?

It's you. Oh, I am. I just don't care to concern myself with the day to day stuff of that.

I would disagree with the analogy. When we keep cutting back on the hours that produce the income (taxes) and yet the bills keep going up because of required payments (costs go up every year), we should absolutely cut back on the spending. But there comes a point where working part time is not going to cover a full time worth of bills. The answer is to start working more hours or get a second job if cutting back any more means no more groceries or electricity or medical care.