Shopsmith Forums

heathicus wrote:If someone chooses to own and drive a car, they need a minimum amount of insurance to cover damage or injury to OTHER people (the specifics vary from state to state). Nobody is forced by law to own and drive a car as a consequence of being an American citizen.

The Obamacare individual mandate to buy insurance, or suffer the consequences of law, is a requirement of simply being a citizen. It's not a result of a choice that any citizen is free to make or not make.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, in all probability it is a duck. Substitute "tax" for "duck", and this one passes all those tests. So why didn't they just call it a tax in the first place? Citizens are accustomed to taxes -- they know what they are. It seems to me that a more useful debate (on the merits, rather than the mechanics) might have ensued.

Personally, I think that government intervention is not necessarily unjustified in principal, but is totally misguided as implemented. IMHO, the government could and should have ensured that both the costs and likely outcomes of the various medical procedures are monitored and made transparent to health-care consumers. So that we can make our own informed choices about our health care and financing/insurance choices. But it seems that Obamacare has muddied the waters even more.

I once asked my own doctor, a friend, what a CT scan that he recommended would cost. He honestly didn't know. And it was to be performed by his own medical group. The typical attitude is "Huh? Why should you care? You aren't paying for it!". Which is why we have a medical system which is brilliant at many things, poor at others, and is greatly overpriced. BTW, my brother, a very successful radiologist, is in complete agreement with this. And he adds that at least a third of the procedures his practice orders are not actually necessary in their professional opinions, except for CYA with the malpractice lawyers. I'm sure it doesn't hurt that they get paid handsomely for them, either.

heathicus wrote:I agree that the game the Republicans are playing right now is a pointless waste of time. However, the Supreme Court was wrong. How is it a "tax" to force me to buy a service from a private company? Sorry, but it was a very bad decision - the Supreme Court does make bad decisions from time to time.

Because the outcome is indistinguishable from forcibly collecting the money from you as a tax, and then using the taxes collected to pay for the mandated service?

beeg wrote:Then how did it pass in the House?

Do you go to the bathroom daily? How does it pass in your House. Shit happens and if you don't have a "Constitution" that controls when it happens it passes. That offers a new meaning to "A Daily Constitution" doesn't it?

Whether the Supreme Court Decision was good or bad is dependent on what you wanted to happen to Obamacare.

If you think Obamacare is going to be good to you and for you, then it was a good decision. Otherwise .........

dusty wrote:Whether the Supreme Court Decision was good or bad is dependent on what you wanted to happen to Obamacare.

If you think Obamacare is going to be good to you and for you, then it was a good decision. Otherwise .........

A 'supreme court' decision should have zilch to do with good/bad for anything/anyone.

Decisions should be made based upon existing law etc. only.

Problems arise when they 'create' precedent for future 'decisions'.

JPG40504 wrote:A 'supreme court' decision should have zilch to do with good/bad for anything/anyone.

Decisions should be made based upon existing law etc. only.

Problems arise when they 'create' precedent for future 'decisions'.

You are absolutely correct.

What I was trying to say is that I think that "good" or "bad" is subjective to everyone's individual opinions.

dusty wrote:You are absolutely correct.

What I was trying to say is that I think that "good" or "bad" is subjective to everyone's individual opinions.

Isn't it always when 'opinion' is involved.

Sacrifices to the gods are good!


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unless they want to sacrifice your livestock!:eek:






That is why 'they' render 'decisions', not state 'opinions'. . . . . . At least that is the intended practice.

[quote="JPG40504"]Isn't it always when 'opinion' is involved.

Sacrifices to the gods are good!


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unless they want to sacrifice your livestock!:eek:






That is why 'they' render 'decisions', not state 'opinions'. . . . . . At least that is the intended practice.]

Actually, they call their decisions "opinions." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx

dusty wrote:You are absolutely correct.

What I was trying to say is that I think that "good" or "bad" is subjective to everyone's individual opinions.

I too agree that Red is 100%. And that "subjective" good or bad thing is mainly what got us into the mess we're in. It's rooted in someone telling someone else "don't be so judgmental" which is one of the most evil things one can hear. Judgmental IS telling right from wrong, good from bad, etc.
Someone tells You not to be is being so, and not only that but is trying to Stifle your personal, individual, natural and God-given RIGHT and freedom of will.
He's saying "Don't decide what is good or evil 'cause I WILL TELL YOU WHAT IS". [This is what the Supremes have sunk to, not interpretation of the Constitution.]

So, stealing from a worker to give to a welfare bum is good. Perversion is normal, and moral is bad. Straight and Normal is bigotted and "-phobic", while aids is something to take pride in, and spread far & wide.

Somebody tells you not to be judgmental, run from him. Fast! He's evil, and he wants you for company in that hot place...

algale wrote:Actually, they call their decisions "opinions." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx

Thus affirming that they do NOT have the final word in a decision.