If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Gateway Pundit)   In case you thought Obamacare was a great way to soak the rich and stick it to the corporations, think again, former middle-class sucker   (thegatewaypundit.com) divider line 432
    More: Obvious, obamacare, Daily Caller, Fox and Friends, middle class  
•       •       •

3371 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jul 2012 at 9:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



432 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-02 03:10:55 PM

skullkrusher: WombatControl: Our Constitution doesn't confer any rights on you

it does. Right to representation or trial by a jury are positive rights that do not exist outside of government.


Both of those are affirmative limits on government power - and you only have the right to trial by jury under certain circumstances. You can't go into traffic court and demand a jury trial - and believe me, someone learns that lesson every day...
 
2012-07-02 03:11:52 PM

Aarontology: I don't think anyone actually thought that.


I had never even considered it.
 
2012-07-02 03:18:06 PM

WombatControl: skullkrusher: WombatControl: Our Constitution doesn't confer any rights on you

it does. Right to representation or trial by a jury are positive rights that do not exist outside of government.

Both of those are affirmative limits on government power
- and you only have the right to trial by jury under certain circumstances. You can't go into traffic court and demand a jury trial - and believe me, someone learns that lesson every day...


Ah, I see. You're just pulling our legs. In hindsight I suppose the "slavery" comment should have been an indication but you know, benefit of the doubt and all that.
 
2012-07-02 03:18:19 PM

Pincy: fracto73: Pincy:
You forgot the right to privacy. Oh, that's right, Robert Bork says we don't have it.


In my experience most conservatives, if pressed, will enthusiastically support an implied right to privacy that comes with other rights.

So even they are willing to "interpret" the Constitution to find implied rights, when it suits their needs I guess?



Ask a conservative if the government has the authority to make a list of every gun owner in the country. They will find a right to privacy in the words "keep and bear arms".
 
2012-07-02 03:21:06 PM

WombatControl: skullkrusher: WombatControl: Our Constitution doesn't confer any rights on you

it does. Right to representation or trial by a jury are positive rights that do not exist outside of government.

Both of those are affirmative limits on government power - and you only have the right to trial by jury under certain circumstances. You can't go into traffic court and demand a jury trial - and believe me, someone learns that lesson every day...


but it is an example of a positive right which does not exist in the absence of a government to provide it. The others you mentioned are negative rights - they are limits on government power to protect rights which exist outside of government.
 
2012-07-02 03:23:52 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: If the mandate works as intended, there would be no monies to collect, hence a drop in funding for the other PPACA provisions.

It seems that the government is relying on people to break the law in order to fund the law.


The mandate is being paid by the increase in income taxes on the wealthy, tanning tax and taxes on high quality insurance plans. The mandate isnt set up to fund the bill, but enforce participation. Personally, I believe the HC bill is funded in a too progressive manner and should have been funded via flat taxes like Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
 
2012-07-02 03:25:06 PM

derpdeederp: Personally, I believe the HC bill is funded in a too progressive manner and should have been funded via flat taxes like Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.


Then we are in agreement.
 
2012-07-02 03:26:03 PM

derpdeederp: Ahh, I dont watch any of those. I was mostly going off observations of Facebook and Fark.


I see, making statements with little or no information.

Let me guess, Republican?
 
2012-07-02 03:29:06 PM

Biological Ali: WombatControl: skullkrusher: WombatControl: Our Constitution doesn't confer any rights on you

it does. Right to representation or trial by a jury are positive rights that do not exist outside of government.

Both of those are affirmative limits on government power - and you only have the right to trial by jury under certain circumstances. You can't go into traffic court and demand a jury trial - and believe me, someone learns that lesson every day...

Ah, I see. You're just pulling our legs. In hindsight I suppose the "slavery" comment should have been an indication but you know, benefit of the doubt and all that.


You apparently still don't understand the difference between positive and negative liberty, do you?

There is no positive right to representative government in the Constitution. (States must have "[r]epublican governments" under the Constitution, but that's not quite the same.) The reason why the Constitution creates a representative system of government is because of the (correct) assertion that the only legitimate government is a government that exists by the consent of the governed. That's not a positive right, that's a negative right.

And again, the "right" to trial by jury isn't an absolute right - it only applies to criminal prosecutions. Again, it's not a positive right, it says that the government may not convict you unless you have been given a jury of your peers. That is a limitation on the government's power, not an affirmative grant of power to an individual.
 
2012-07-02 03:31:47 PM

WombatControl: That is a limitation on the government's power, not an affirmative grant of power to an individual.


Okay. Why don't you explain exactly how the right to representation is a "limitation on the government's power".

This should be good.
 
2012-07-02 03:31:55 PM

WombatControl: There is no positive right to representative government in the Constitution.


"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" notwithstanding?
 
2012-07-02 03:35:33 PM

NateGrey: derpdeederp: Ahh, I dont watch any of those. I was mostly going off observations of Facebook and Fark.

I see, making statements with little or no information.

Let me guess, Republican?


Lol, yes, when making a comment about how I view the fark thread going I should be watching news channels instead of reading the fark thread and commenting about it. You have truly shown me to be ignorant and therefore a Republican. You sir, deserve a cookie!
 
2012-07-02 03:46:15 PM
WombatControl

You're incorrect about the Miranda case granting you the right to a court-appointed attorney. From what I remember, all Miranda did was force LEOs to inform someone about to undergo questioning that they had a right to counsel (as well as their right to remain silent, etc).

And both court-appointed attorneys in our right-to-counsel country and doctors in our individually-mandated-to-carry-health-insurance country will be paid for their services.

I know that there are pro bono attorneys out there, but are attorneys typically forced to work for indigent clients without even a slim hope of being paid for their services? Isn't there some state fund that pays when the client can't?
 
2012-07-02 03:51:44 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Chummer45: The_Six_Fingered_Man: theknuckler_33: Apparently the penalties for not having health care coverage make up 100% of the costs of the ACA.

They sure do. Just ask Chummer. He even called it "the funding mechanism for ACA."

Jesus christ. Way to miss my point. See my previous post.

Sorry, did you not say that, and then turn around and say that the penalty is the mechanism by which all the other ACA reforms are funded?


My point was that the mandate provides the necessary additional insureds to make the

WombatControl: Biological Ali: WombatControl: You don't have the right to get a will for free, you don't have the right to command a lawyer to incorporate your business, etc. So no, you don't have a general right to legal representation. Your analogy doesn't change his point.

And you don't have the right to make a doctor mow your lawn either, even after you've accepted that healthcare is a right. Which is kind of the point.

That's not a substantive distinction. If healthcare is a "right" then you're still arguing that you have the "right" to someone else's labor. It makes no difference what form of labor it is. It's no less slavery than saying that the South would have been OK having slaves so long as they were treated well and only forced to do agricultural work.

If you recognize human rights, you can't have a system in which anyone is entitled to the labor of another by law.


Uh..... so there are people in this thread who are actually arguing that the ACA = slavery?

I guess if Taxation = theft, then why not? Sure! health care reform is slavery!!!
 
2012-07-02 03:52:58 PM

Biological Ali: WombatControl: That is a limitation on the government's power, not an affirmative grant of power to an individual.

Okay. Why don't you explain exactly how the right to representation is a "limitation on the government's power".

This should be good.


It's not that difficult of a concept. The government can't act unless it secures your consent, your consent manifested by voting for a representative. That's an affirmative limit on the power of government. It means that government cannot do anything without the consent of the governed.

It is a limitation on the power of the state, not a positive right.
 
2012-07-02 03:53:34 PM

qorkfiend: WombatControl: There is no positive right to representative government in the Constitution.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" notwithstanding?



This guy is trolling pretty damn hard. For christ's sake, he opened his troll-a-thon by equating the ACA with slavery.
 
2012-07-02 03:55:34 PM

WombatControl: Biological Ali: WombatControl: That is a limitation on the government's power, not an affirmative grant of power to an individual.

Okay. Why don't you explain exactly how the right to representation is a "limitation on the government's power".

This should be good.

It's not that difficult of a concept. The government can't act unless it secures your consent, your consent manifested by voting for a representative. That's an affirmative limit on the power of government. It means that government cannot do anything without the consent of the governed.

It is a limitation on the power of the state, not a positive right.


Well that's not true. You're confusing direct democracy with represent.... ah hell, why am I even bothering?
 
2012-07-02 03:56:17 PM

Chummer45: qorkfiend: WombatControl: There is no positive right to representative government in the Constitution.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" notwithstanding?


This guy is trolling pretty damn hard. For christ's sake, he opened his troll-a-thon by equating the ACA with slavery.


Wombat? He's not that bad.
 
2012-07-02 03:58:14 PM

Dr Dreidel: WombatControl

You're incorrect about the Miranda case granting you the right to a court-appointed attorney. From what I remember, all Miranda did was force LEOs to inform someone about to undergo questioning that they had a right to counsel (as well as their right to remain silent, etc).

And both court-appointed attorneys in our right-to-counsel country and doctors in our individually-mandated-to-carry-health-insurance country will be paid for their services.

I know that there are pro bono attorneys out there, but are attorneys typically forced to work for indigent clients without even a slim hope of being paid for their services? Isn't there some state fund that pays when the client can't?


Attorneys are supposed to provide pro bono services, but they're not required to. The American Bar Association recommends at least 50 hours per year of pro bono service - but that's just a recommendation.

Chummer45: Uh..... so there are people in this thread who are actually arguing that the ACA = slavery?

I guess if Taxation = theft, then why not? Sure! health care reform is slavery!!!


I don't think that's what's being argued here. The discussion has moved beyond the ACA to the idea of whether healthcare is a "right" or not.

The ACA doesn't go so far as to say that healthcare is an affirmative right, even if some of its supporters seem to think that.
 
2012-07-02 03:59:53 PM

WombatControl: The ACA doesn't go so far as to say that healthcare is an affirmative right, even if some of its supporters seem to think that.



No, the ACA makes it clear that it's more of an obligation than a right, like jury duty.
 
2012-07-02 04:01:45 PM

WombatControl: Biological Ali: WombatControl: That is a limitation on the government's power, not an affirmative grant of power to an individual.

Okay. Why don't you explain exactly how the right to representation is a "limitation on the government's power".

This should be good.

It's not that difficult of a concept. The government can't act unless it secures your consent, your consent manifested by voting for a representative. That's an affirmative limit on the power of government. It means that government cannot do anything without the consent of the governed.

It is a limitation on the power of the state, not a positive right.


You do realize that even people who can't (or don't) vote are still represented, right? The right to vote and representation are two different things.
 
2012-07-02 04:06:17 PM

qorkfiend: WombatControl: There is no positive right to representative government in the Constitution.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" notwithstanding?


"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."
 
2012-07-02 04:22:56 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: qorkfiend: WombatControl: There is no positive right to representative government in the Constitution.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" notwithstanding?

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."


I mentioned that one earlier - but again, that's not a positive right. For one, read it closely - who is guaranteeing what to whom? (Hint, the word "people" doesn't appear anywhere in the clause...)

In fact, you can't even sue under that clause - the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that it's a political question and won't even reach the question of what it means.

The problem people have is that they're trying to fit structural portions of the Constitution and construe them as "rights." It's like saying that you have the "right" to the Post Office or patents. They're both in the Constitution, but they're not independent positive rights.
 
2012-07-02 04:24:41 PM

WombatControl: I mentioned that one earlier - but again, that's not a positive right. For one, read it closely - who is guaranteeing what to whom? (Hint, the word "people" doesn't appear anywhere in the clause...)


Sure it does. "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States..."

On second glance, it looks like you're responding to PFQ...
 
2012-07-02 04:26:06 PM
WombatControl:

Sorry. I see my name in green and habit kicks in.
 
2012-07-02 04:28:24 PM

WombatControl: It's not that difficult of a concept. The government can't act unless it secures your consent, your consent manifested by voting for a representative. That's an affirmative limit on the power of government. It means that government cannot do anything without the consent of the governed.


huh? No, the part where the government has to secure your consent is the negative right to not be compelled to self incriminate. That's the "right to remain silent" bit.

The positive right is where the government has to give you a representative. The "if you cannot afford one..."
 
2012-07-02 04:28:26 PM

WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: qorkfiend: WombatControl: There is no positive right to representative government in the Constitution.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" notwithstanding?

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

I mentioned that one earlier - but again, that's not a positive right. For one, read it closely - who is guaranteeing what to whom? (Hint, the word "people" doesn't appear anywhere in the clause...)

In fact, you can't even sue under that clause - the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that it's a political question and won't even reach the question of what it means.

The problem people have is that they're trying to fit structural portions of the Constitution and construe them as "rights." It's like saying that you have the "right" to the Post Office or patents. They're both in the Constitution, but they're not independent positive rights.


So you believe you state could organize itself as an heredity absolute monarchy and you would have no right to challenge that under the US Constitution? Amazing, simply amazing. You clearly are one of the great legal and Constitutional scholars of our time.
 
2012-07-02 04:31:13 PM

WombatControl: bugontherug:

I just love when people pull out that Franklin quotation. Because if you take it seriously, then you really are a Communist. Because it says that the right of private property doesn't, and shouldn't exist, except for those items that society deems "necessary." If you want to live that way, fine, there are plenty of countries that think such a philosophy is perfectly acceptable - but they're all very shiatty places to live.


The quotes taken together for the proposition that not all of the framers supported Madison's view of the Constitution. That point is indisputable. You're dead wrong on "what the American system is about." The Constitution was never intended to carve the principles of Ayn Rand into stone. It was to set a framework for democratic-republican government. Its intent was to give the people the power to choose what sort of nation they wanted to live in.

Note that neither Franklin's idea nor Paine's was ever adopted in the founding of this country. And Paine's idea wasn't as much a grant of an affirmative right as it was a recognition that government intrudes on the sovereignty of the people.

Okay, so the Social Security program Paine advocated, which is identical in principle to modern Social Security, was not an "affirmative right." Gotcha.

And that Hamilton quotation also misses the point - Hamlton wasn't arguing that the government can tax and spend however the hell it wants - for one, the Constitution specifically denies that, and second Hamilton's use of the term "general welfare" meant something different then than it does now. (It didn't mean that Congress had plenary power to spend money on anything that it wanted, it meant that Congress had the plenary power to spend money however it wanted under the limited and enumerated powers it had under the Constitution).

No, it never meant that, which is the whole point of the quotes. The framers in fact had different ideas about what the Constitution meant. They intended those differences to be resolved in the democratic processes they set up. The problem is, you want to deny the people the right to choose any view of the Constitution other than your own--which is contra the framers' real intent. You want to take power away from the people acting through their elected representatives, and concentrate it into the hands of five out of nine black-robed lawyers.
 
2012-07-02 04:32:33 PM

bugontherug: The quotes taken together stand for for the proposition


Pardon me.
 
2012-07-02 04:34:40 PM

physt: bartink: BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX.

Douchebag righty. Claims to think Americans should take responsibility for themselves. Complains when Democrats make them do just that.

You shouldn't have to be FORCED BY THE GUVMINT to take responsibility for yourself!

to buy someone's product.

ftfy
 
2012-07-02 04:38:31 PM

WombatControl: Actually, no, that's wrong as a matter of law. You have no right to Social Security. Congress can take it away from you at any time so long as they have a rational basis for it - that particular issue was settled by the Supreme Court 60 years ago.

Same with Medicare or Medicaid. Tomorrow Congress could defund all of those programs, and so long as they had some rational basis for it, that would be perfectly legal.


No, you have a right to them provided you meet the statutory eligibility criteria. A right enforceable in a court of law.
 
2012-07-02 04:43:18 PM

bugontherug: WombatControl: Actually, no, that's wrong as a matter of law. You have no right to Social Security. Congress can take it away from you at any time so long as they have a rational basis for it - that particular issue was settled by the Supreme Court 60 years ago.

Same with Medicare or Medicaid. Tomorrow Congress could defund all of those programs, and so long as they had some rational basis for it, that would be perfectly legal.

No, you have a right to them provided you meet the statutory eligibility criteria. A right enforceable in a court of law.


Not to mention, that argument applies to every single right. For instance, the US constitution could be amended so as to void the entire bill of rights, at any time.
 
2012-07-02 04:43:43 PM

bugontherug: No, you have a right to them provided you meet the statutory eligibility criteria. A right enforceable in a court of law.


Question:

Unless you force providers to accept Medicaid, how to you go about enjoying your right to the program?

BTW: I suggest you check Gonzaga v Doe before you respond.
 
2012-07-02 04:46:34 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: BTW: I suggest you check Gonzaga v Doe before you respond.


I remember that one. Real cinderella story
 
2012-07-02 04:56:52 PM
I'm sorry that your blog sucks.
 
2012-07-02 05:19:31 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So you believe you state could organize itself as an heredity absolute monarchy and you would have no right to challenge that under the US Constitution? Amazing, simply amazing. You clearly are one of the great legal and Constitutional scholars of our time.


It's not my belief - it's what the Supreme Court has said. Read Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 224 (1962):

Just as the Court has consistently held that a challenge to state action based on the Guaranty Clause presents no justiciable question, so has it held, and for the same reasons, that challenges to congressional action on the ground of inconsistency with that clause present no justiciable question.


bugontherug: The quotes taken together for the proposition that not all of the framers supported Madison's view of the Constitution. That point is indisputable. You're dead wrong on "what the American system is about." The Constitution was never intended to carve the principles of Ayn Rand into stone. It was to set a framework for democratic-republican government. Its intent was to give the people the power to choose what sort of nation they wanted to live in.


No, that's not a meaningful argument. The Constitution was not, and is not, a mealy-mouthed document that can be filled with whatever the whim of the moment is. It was designed to be a system that set up a federal government of limited and enumerated powers with checks and balances between coequal branches. The fact may be that not all the Framers accepted Madison's view: but Madison's view is the one that ended up being adopted, with certain compromises along the way.

And that's what the Framers created: a system where you had a federal government that was restricted by the Constitution and states that have general police powers. They only put that structure to the "democratic process" inasmuch as they created a right to amend the Constitution itself.

bugontherug: No, you have a right to them provided you meet the statutory eligibility criteria. A right enforceable in a court of law.


That's not what Flemming v. Nestor says: in that case someone actually tried that theory in court and the Supreme Court shot them down. You have no property right to Social Security payments at all - they exist only by the whim of Congress, and Congress can take them away with no more than some rational purpose for doing so.
 
2012-07-02 05:20:02 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: erveek: And people like you are furious that poor people (particularly poor minorities) can have access to their services instead of being farked over like God intended.

That's cute that you seem to think you know what I believe.


I said "people like you". Because you're whining that poor people might get to see a doctor.
 
2012-07-02 05:21:46 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So you believe you state could organize itself as an heredity absolute monarchy and you would have no right to challenge that under the US Constitution? Amazing, simply amazing. You clearly are one of the great legal and Constitutional scholars of our time.


And yes, it seems weird that you can't sue under those circumstances - but the Fourteenth Amendment would probably serve to block a state from being a monarchy even if the Guaranty Clause does not. (Hell, that might be a case where the Supreme Court would dust off the Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities clause...)
 
2012-07-02 05:22:57 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: No, you have a right to them provided you meet the statutory eligibility criteria. A right enforceable in a court of law.

Question:

Unless you force providers to accept Medicaid, how to you go about enjoying your right to the program?

BTW: I suggest you check Gonzaga v Doe before you respond.


No health care provider is required to accept Medicaid. If a particular doctor declines to accept your Medicaid, you find one who is willing to accept it.
 
2012-07-02 05:24:30 PM

erveek: The_Six_Fingered_Man: erveek: And people like you are furious that poor people (particularly poor minorities) can have access to their services instead of being farked over like God intended.

That's cute that you seem to think you know what I believe.

I said "people like you". Because you're whining that poor people might get to see a doctor.


Where was I whining? Curious. BTW: poor people, rich people, middle class people, etc. ALREADY had the opportunity to see a doctor. It is not as if PPACA passed and all of a sudden these people were no longer turned away. Please don't be any more stupid than you have been in this thread.
 
2012-07-02 05:27:09 PM

bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: No, you have a right to them provided you meet the statutory eligibility criteria. A right enforceable in a court of law.

Question:

Unless you force providers to accept Medicaid, how to you go about enjoying your right to the program?

BTW: I suggest you check Gonzaga v Doe before you respond.

No health care provider is required to accept Medicaid. If a particular doctor declines to accept your Medicaid, you find one who is willing to accept it.


And if it comes to the point that no provider will accept Medicaid any longer, how do you exercise your right to the program?

BTW: Medicaid is an entitlement, not a right. It says it all through the forming document.
 
2012-07-02 05:31:36 PM

It was designed to be a system that set up a federal government of limited and enumerated powers with checks and balances between coequal branches.


Nobody serious disputes that. The issue is "what is the scope of the enumerated powers?"

The fact may be that not all the Framers accepted Madison's view: but Madison's view is the one that ended up being adopted, with certain compromises along the way.

Incorrect. George Washington didn't adopt Madison's view of the spending power. Neither did Alexander Hamilton. And, of course, James Madison ceded the issue of implied powers when he rechartered the national bank. Oh yeah, Jefferson ceded the issue too, when he bought the Louisiana territory. And of course, early Congresses took it upon themselves to build canals, even though there is no expressly enumerated power to build canals. And other useful infrastructure projects not expressly enumerated.
 
2012-07-02 05:32:51 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: And if it comes to the point that no provider will accept Medicaid any longer, how do you exercise your right to the program?


How could this possibly happen, given the number of people on Medicaid and the general rules of the free market? There will always be a demand for physicians who accept Medicaid; it seems silly to suggest that demand will not be met.
 
2012-07-02 05:37:07 PM

qorkfiend: The_Six_Fingered_Man: And if it comes to the point that no provider will accept Medicaid any longer, how do you exercise your right to the program?

How could this possibly happen, given the number of people on Medicaid and the general rules of the free market? There will always be a demand for physicians who accept Medicaid; it seems silly to suggest that demand will not be met.


You would think that. It certainly conforms to the general rules of the free market. However, you have Texas doctors opting out, and a general decline in physicians accepting new Medicaid patients.

So if you cannot find a doctor in your area that will accept new Medicaid patients, how would you go about exercising your "right" to the Medicaid program?
 
2012-07-02 05:37:41 PM

Weaver95: sooo...the people who will be using that system the most, will be paying for it and...this is a bad thing?


This. Plus, "over 120k$/year" is only 5% of households, so they're actually chipping into the system more than we are despite not directly benefiting from it. Seems a reasonable arrangement for a national program of this nature.
 
2012-07-02 05:39:52 PM
So, I have to pay for my health insurance? I'm OK with that.

Oh, this is for Subtard.
memeorama.com
 
2012-07-02 05:42:57 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: And if it comes to the point that no provider will accept Medicaid any longer, how do you exercise your right to the program?


The same way you ordinarily would, which is to apply for it at the social services office. Of course, then the benefits would be worthless--what the law calls an "imperfect right."

imperfect right. A right that is recognized by the law but is not enforceable.
~~ Black's Law

BTW: Medicaid is an entitlement, not a right. It says it all through the forming document.

right, n. 2. Something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle.

~~Black's Law

Never mind, I suppose, that a property right is that which one has a "legitimate claim of entitlement to."
 
2012-07-02 05:43:07 PM

WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: So you believe you state could organize itself as an heredity absolute monarchy and you would have no right to challenge that under the US Constitution? Amazing, simply amazing. You clearly are one of the great legal and Constitutional scholars of our time.

And yes, it seems weird that you can't sue under those circumstances - but the Fourteenth Amendment would probably serve to block a state from being a monarchy even if the Guaranty Clause does not. (Hell, that might be a case where the Supreme Court would dust off the Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities clause...)


I fully believe that if a state attempted to actually institute a non-Republican form of government, the Guarantee clause would be enforced by the Federal courts.
 
2012-07-02 05:46:03 PM

bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: And if it comes to the point that no provider will accept Medicaid any longer, how do you exercise your right to the program?

The same way you ordinarily would, which is to apply for it at the social services office. Of course, then the benefits would be worthless--what the law calls an "imperfect right."

imperfect right. A right that is recognized by the law but is not enforceable.
~~ Black's Law

BTW: Medicaid is an entitlement, not a right. It says it all through the forming document.

right, n. 2. Something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle.
~~Black's Law

Never mind, I suppose, that a property right is that which one has a "legitimate claim of entitlement to."


Flemming v Nestor. I suggest you take a look at it.
 
2012-07-02 05:48:18 PM
Damn, seems there are some people here who absolutely hate the idea of having to pay some money in order to keep their country, along with their fellow countrymen, alive and running. They'd rather see everything crumble and burn before giving up one cent to ensure that they, along with everyone else (oooooooooo, they hate that part so much) have the means with which to live and ensure the comfort and ease of life.

If you hate being social and helpful that much, move to a log cabin in the mountains, far away from civilization. The last thing we need is your kind raising a stink because you can't stand the idea of having to help keep the country you live in from dying.
 
Displayed 50 of 432 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report