Rush Limbaugh At It Again

[just-want-peace]

Easy to toss around the "liberal" tag on those you disagree with.

As far as taxation is concerned, I wish we could reduce the amount of taxes the government takes from us by at least fifty percent. I also think most taxing should be done on the local level. But, since the federal government is taking our money anyway, I would rather see it go to humanitarian causes rather than the corrupt politicians.

Emphasis mine

Unfortunately these are one in the same!

If it were not for the vote buying aspect of the dole-outs,the politicians would just stick it in their pockets and let the rest of the citizens get by as best they can - sorta 3rd worldish, if you will!

Not to worry though, a few more years of liberal rule and we'll be right there with the other Chavez's of this ole blue orb.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Yep. Limited taxation is supported by the Constitution. But the issue isn't whether or not taxation is supported, but what does the Constitution say the government is supposed to do with that tax money.

In Article 1, Sec. 8 it says the Federal government can regulate interstate commerce. That means healthcare reform is constitutional.

 

[Salty]

In Article 1, Sec. 8 it says the Federal government can regulate interstate commerce. That means healthcare reform is constitutional.

But what about health care that is done completely within ONE State or Commonwealth?

Salty

 

[targus]

In Article 1, Sec. 8 it says the Federal government can regulate interstate commerce. That means healthcare reform is constitutional.

Is health insurance interstate commerce?

One of the reforms that the dems are resisting is allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Easy to toss around the "liberal" tag on those you disagree with.

Who did I call a liberal?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

In Article 1, Sec. 8 it says the Federal government can regulate interstate commerce. That means healthcare reform is constitutional.

First of all, how in the world did you come to that conclusion?

Second, how is health insurance "interstate commerce" when you're prohibited by law from purchasing insurance from companies outside your own state?

 

[matt wade]

I see Snow is done with his new found conservatism and is back to being a liberal again. :laugh:

 

[FR7 Baptist]

First of all, how in the world did you come to that conclusion?

Second, how is health insurance "interstate commerce" when you're prohibited by law from purchasing insurance from companies outside your own state?

It's simple. Even if your doctor is local, the medical supplies are shipped around, even if you have an in-state insurance plan, the company is likely based out of state, etc. Also, healthcare reform affects interstate commerce because of the aggregate effects of everyone having healthcare. Furthermore, the fine if you don't sign up is okay because of the Congress' taxing power.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

It's simple. Even if your doctor is local, the medical supplies are shipped around, even if you have an in-state insurance plan, the company is likely based out of state, etc. Also, healthcare reform affects interstate commerce because of the aggregate effects of everyone having healthcare.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

 

[targus]

It's simple. Even if your doctor is local, the medical supplies are shipped around, even if you have an in-state insurance plan, the company is likely based out of state, etc. Also, healthcare reform affects interstate commerce because of the aggregate effects of everyone having healthcare.

Based on that reading of the Constitution, everything is inter-state commerce.

Why would the framers have even bothered with States rights if it is so easily discarded by calling everything inter-state commerce.

Furthermore, the fine if you don't sign up is okay because of the Congress' taxing power.

Why are they calling it a fine if it is a tax?

Perhaps because it is not a tax?

Does the consititution give Congress the power to fine?

 

[Revmitchell]

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

nope.............

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Based on that reading of the Constitution, everything is inter-state commerce.

Why would the framers have even bothered with States rights if it is so easily discarded by calling everything inter-state commerce.

The Supreme Court has recognized some limitations to the Commerce Clause. In United States v. Lopez, the Court struck down the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act as unconstitutional.

Why are they calling it a fine if it is a tax?

Perhaps because it is not a tax?

Does the consititution give Congress the power to fine?

That's a fairly good point. It could be that it is legally a tax and we are just calling it a fine, or it may in fact be a fine that rests on the same constitutional basis as civil penalties such as fines issued by Federal regulatory agencies like the FCC. I'm not sure; I'll have to look into it.

 

[Robert Snow]

Who did I call a liberal?

My mistake. I see now that you were speaking in general. I can't say that I disagree with you. It seems many liberals do want something for nothing. Government aid instead of work.

 

[Robert Snow]

I see Snow is done with his new found conservatism and is back to being a liberal again. :laugh:

First, I was a conservative when you were wearing diapers. I only spent a brief time looking at things from a liberal viewpoint, and I have renounced it. Please at least try and tell the truth, it is better than continual lying. Then again, maybe you aren't lying, just stirring up contention.

 

[Steven2006]

IMHO the entire point seems like apples and oranges. In Haiti we are responding to a disaster what does that have to do with death panels?

Rush is just going for shock value to make his point, but I think it was a swing and a miss with this one.

 

[targus]

IMHO the entire point seems like apples and oranges. In Haiti we are responding to a disaster what does that have to do with death panels?

Rush is just going for shock value to make his point, but I think it was a swing and a miss with this one.

Then you seem to have missed his point.

Obama wishes to impose a healthscare system on U.S. citizens which by it's design will judge the relative value of individuals before determining what services will be provided.

OTOH - in Haiti Obama is willing to assist any person in need equally without first judging their relative value.

The irony is that the same Haitian in the U.S. would probably be one of the people judged as not valuable - and therefore not receiving service - because of a lack of education and marketable skills.

Why the difference in attitude on Obama's part between these two groups of people?

Rush has offered one explanation.

What is yours?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Then you seem to have missed his point.

Obama wishes to impose a healthscare system on U.S. citizens which by it's design will judge the relative value of individuals before determining what services will be provided.

Exactly what insurance companies do now, except they have the freedom of denying insurance to a person already covered when that person becomes too expensive.

 

[targus]

Exactly what insurance companies do now, except they have the freedom of denying insurance to a person already covered when that person becomes too expensive.

Crabby, how about joining in the topic?

The topic is the difference between what Obama wants for U.S. citizens and what he is calling for in the Haitian rescue.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Crabby, how about joining in the topic?

The topic is the difference between what Obama wants for U.S. citizens and what he is calling for in the Haitian rescue.

Rush is comparing apples and sea slugs. Stupid comparison, but good for his fanatic ditto-heads and his ratings. But nothing to do with the real world.

 

[Steven2006]

Then you seem to have missed his point.

Obama wishes to impose a healthscare system on U.S. citizens which by it's design will judge the relative value of individuals before determining what services will be provided.

OTOH - in Haiti Obama is willing to assist any person in need equally without first judging their relative value.

The irony is that the same Haitian in the U.S. would probably be one of the people judged as not valuable - and therefore not receiving service - because of a lack of education and marketable skills.

Why the difference in attitude on Obama's part between these two groups of people?

Rush has offered one explanation.

What is yours?

Mine? I still think it is apples and oranges. One is a response to a disaster, the other is planned health care. I am against the health care bill, but this is a dumb argument.

I'll give you an analogy to why it is a silly point. Say there was a dispute whether swimming should be legal in a towns local lake. While the debate was still raging one afternoon a little boy started drowning and someone that was known to be on the side of making it illegal to swim jumped in and swam to save the boy. The only point the other side makes is "Oh, I see you can swim in the lake".