1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Two Years On: Obamacare

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Zeke12, Mar 23, 2012.

  1. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Barack Obama speaking against health insurance mandates:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/01/video-guess-who-predicted-the-obamacare-ruling/
     
  2. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Yes, they are. If they don't buy a Prius, they pay $4,000 (or whatever the amount is). If they buy a Prius, they don't pay that $4,000.
     
  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Yes.
     
  4. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    It should be mandated that we all have to buy horses to end foreign dependance on oil.
     
  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    "We are not censoring this New Yorker article about corruption in the administration. We're ... 'improving' it!"
     
  6. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Your mistake here is "should."

    "Should" and "could" are very different concepts.

    Don't get hung up on whether we "should" have a mandate. That's a policy argument.

    There "could" be a mandate that we all have to buy horses. I have no doubt about that. Again: This is why we hold elections. The political process keeps lawmakers in check.
     
  7. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    That principle of limited government and Constitutional democracy is supposed to limit them, too. I get that you are arguing they shouldn't, but some of us aren't quite ready to give that up.
     
  8. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    But isn't that one of the concerns of court, that if they rule in favor that "could" becomes more possible for whatever legislatures come up with?
     
  9. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Again: Not "should."

    "Could."
     
  10. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    They have raised that question. I vehemently disagree that the Court should make that a factor in its decision. It's a policy question, left to the political process.
     
  11. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    I'm not sure it's as big a difference as you'd like to believe - at least philosophically.

    And politically, you're now in the position of telling me that the government, acting as middleman, knows better than I do how to spend the tax money it collects from me.
     
  12. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Boom - Court conservatives frequently rule that the executive branch has wide latitude, a position I tend to agree with, because the political process works to restrain the executive branch. It causes some cognitive dissonance for me if now, suddenly, they feel like they have to make a policy decision to protect people from their elected representatives.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page