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.

(Opposing Views)   Rand Paul thinks congress should get veteran's benefits, food stamps and the special Medal of Honor stipend. OK, he doesn't really think that, but he's brilliantly crafted a constitutional amendment that would make it happen   (opposingviews.com) divider line 143
    More: Stupid, Medal of Honor, food stamps, constitutional amendments, welfare benefits, Americans, proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, Medal of Honor recipients  
•       •       •

10650 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Oct 2013 at 1:37 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-22 02:28:17 PM

naughtyrev: Rand Paul, who is pushing not just a simple piece of legislation but an actual amendment to the United States Constitution that would prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

So that means I could get those sweet insider trading benefits, right Rand? I think everyone will get on board with this amendment.


Since that law has already been passed, Congress would continue to enjoy immunity from insider trading.  Funny, Rand Paul didn't make his proposed amendment that far simpler "The members of the United States Congress shall be subject to the same laws as all other residents and citizens of the United States."
 
2013-10-22 02:29:01 PM

nmrsnr: Oh, and for the curious, here's the actual proposed language:

'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.

'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.

'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.'

First off, this seems tautological, since all members of Congress are citizens of the US, so all laws which apply to a citizen of the US also, by default, applies to Congress.

Second, it doesn't necessarily go the other way, it doesn't say that any law applicable to members of Congress are necessarily applicable to all citizens of the US, which means that you can craft as many exemptions as you want, and as long as they are tailored specifically to Congress it doesn't violate this amendment.

So this amendment is both unnecessary and ineffective at achieving its stated purpose.


Really? Go try to get a congressman arrested for a misdemeanor. See what happens?
 
2013-10-22 02:30:24 PM

what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


Uh, almost everyone thinks this.
 
2013-10-22 02:30:30 PM

Mrbogey: The author misstates the basic facts of what transpired/argued and then proposes what would happen under his poor reading of the amendment.

With the advent of the information age, why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?


Clearly you were born yesterday.  Just about every piece of information out there in the "information age" is skewed or opinionated in some sense.  Yes, it's possible to dig deeper and find actual intelligently written, unbiased facts.  But what comes out instantly and publicly, is pretty much crap.

//This is just my opinion, of course.
 
2013-10-22 02:31:42 PM

Aquapope: Joe Blowme: prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

so tag is for those who think laws should be applied equally to congress?

No, it's for somebody who thinks a Constitutional Amendment is necessary to make laws apply to members of Congress because laws ALREADY apply to members of Congress (unless specifically exempted, like insider trading).


So maybe we just need to enforce what we have then because the insider trading thing is insanely obvious. Elected worth 1 million and come out 1 term later worth 10 million? something stinks and everyone knows it but the powers that be have us fighting each other instead of them.
 
2013-10-22 02:32:15 PM
jayphat:  Really? Go try to get a congressman arrested for a misdemeanor. See what happens?

www.moonbattery.com
Do you know who I am?
 
2013-10-22 02:36:09 PM

James!: what_now: Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid?

Yes.


Kentucky voters
 
2013-10-22 02:36:18 PM
Yeah. what a ridiculous idea.
 
2013-10-22 02:37:30 PM

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Wait. Are the articles on this (this one and the ThinkProgress one) really suggesting that Congress members should be  ineligible for those benefits if they qualify for them?

That's the point, genius. Congress isn't exempt from "Obamacare" anymore than they're exempt from these benefits.


The thing is, they see themselves as Congressmen, not citizens.  They are the elite, not civilians  They are your better, and above you.  It's only fitting that they should share the bounty that the mere citizen receives.  They worked so hard to bring it to you, after all.  That's how I read it: they are deserving of special considerations above and beyond the typical citizen, since they aim to never again rejoin the citizenry/want to stay in office indefinitely.
 
2013-10-22 02:39:22 PM
Of course, the "exemption" was never an exemption at all. The new law requires only that Americans have some kind of health care coverage. Only people who are currently uninsured are required to buy insurance through the online health insurance exchanges created by the law (or through some other means).

No one who currently receives insurance through an employer, private or governmental, would be required to do anything different.


I'm not surprised that Rand Paul doesn't understand this, but I'm sort of sad he doesn't.
 
2013-10-22 02:39:29 PM

nmrsnr: Oh, and for the curious, here's the actual proposed language:

'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.

'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.

'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.'

First off, this seems tautological, since all members of Congress are citizens of the US, so all laws which apply to a citizen of the US also, by default, applies to Congress.

Second, it doesn't necessarily go the other way, it doesn't say that any law applicable to members of Congress are necessarily applicable to all citizens of the US, which means that you can craft as many exemptions as you want, and as long as they are tailored specifically to Congress it doesn't violate this amendment.

So this amendment is both unnecessary and ineffective at achieving its stated purpose.


So it is a law that will do nothing *and* be really popular with idiots?   Isn't this the very core of what politicians hope for?
 
2013-10-22 02:41:08 PM

MyRandomName: Define data. There is data showing companies dropping coverage. That is data. Are you that slow?


But what kind of data is it? And how is it being used?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176711/nothing-ted-cruz-said-about-aca -t oday-true#

"No doubt the health law is imposingsome additional costs on employers, though once again Cruz elides any debate over the benefit trade-offs involved. But even UPS is emphasizing (not that Republicans will listen) that the ACA isn't a controlling factor in ending spousal benefits. "One way of saying this is that we are restructuring our benefits 'because of the ACA'-but that's not accurate," Andy McGowan, a UPS spokesman, told Cohn. "We are doing this because we are looking at many different factors adding to our costs, and ACA is one of them."

Finally, you might have wondered if UPS only has 15,000 employees. It does not! The company is only ending the benefits of spouses who already have a job where they can get health insurance. In other words, not a single person is actually losing coverage because of this move. Cruz doesn't mention that."


Then as regards the whole congressional exemption, it's mostly mythology. 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/network.asp 

And that's the problem with Rand Paul's whole approach. It's not that congress is exempt, it's that many of these bills aren't aimed at them. The ACA is largely about expanding insurance coverage to more people. Members of Congress already have excellent insurance coverage. Those aspects of the ACA shouldn't apply to them. So Paul is rallying stupidly around a stupid cause. 

It sure would be nice if certain instances where Congress is exempt from the rules that govern the rest of us would be eliminated, but Rand Paul noticeably isn't referring to those.  He's just show boating around the ACA, because he's an idiot, and trying to portray this as some noble effort to end Congressional corruption is crap.
 
2013-10-22 02:41:56 PM

MyRandomName: cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Wait. Are the articles on this (this one and the ThinkProgress one) really suggesting that Congress members should be  ineligible for those benefits if they qualify for them?

That's the point, genius. Congress isn't exempt from "Obamacare" anymore than they're exempt from these benefits.

No other employer in the US can opt into ACA exchanges and pay 80% of the costs. Not one. But OMB declared that ability for the federal government.

The correct action would be offering a raise that offset exchanges costs, not what OMB did.


Setting aside the trivial matter that your numbers are wrong, the federal government's contribution to its employees' health insurance premiums is a part of their pay. What you are arguing is that Congressmen and their staffers should take a pay cut (a pretty sizable one at that) and not that they should be treated the same as employees of private companies.
 
2013-10-22 02:42:18 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: nmrsnr: Oh, and for the curious, here's the actual proposed language:

'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.

'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.

'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.'

First off, this seems tautological, since all members of Congress are citizens of the US, so all laws which apply to a citizen of the US also, by default, applies to Congress.

Second, it doesn't necessarily go the other way, it doesn't say that any law applicable to members of Congress are necessarily applicable to all citizens of the US, which means that you can craft as many exemptions as you want, and as long as they are tailored specifically to Congress it doesn't violate this amendment.

So this amendment is both unnecessary and ineffective at achieving its stated purpose.

So it is a law that will do nothing *and* be really popular with idiots?   Isn't this the very core of what politicians hope for?


Yep, see gun control.
 
2013-10-22 02:42:45 PM
I respect Ron Paul, although I disagree with him about the gold standard.

Rand Paul, though, seems to get less relevant every day.

Maybe he's adopted or something...apple seems to have fallen pretty far from the farking tree.
 
2013-10-22 02:43:48 PM

what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


Surprisingly a lot of people believe this "exception" BS. I casually mentioned that our state one Republican house Rep votes against the debt/shutdown agreement (the one that finally passed last week). The two moderate conservatives who sit closest to me stated that while they thought the agreement was good, that they understood the representatives stated argument that he voted against it because the exception was unfair.  I tried to set them straight, and pointed out several articles that were even written by conservatives such as the national review, pointing out that its a fake argument. They really didn't want to hear it... :(
 
2013-10-22 02:45:03 PM
I don't think he's introduced a single piece of legislation that's passed. Ever.

But, sure. A constitutional amendment should be a piece of cake.

Just a two year old who wants some attention, so he has an outburst. He should be but in time out for a while.
 
2013-10-22 02:46:10 PM
I just want to note: The Equal Rights Amendment will get ratified before this thing will. (Which is to say, never.)
 
2013-10-22 02:46:55 PM

nmrsnr: Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.


So I'm curious, does this mean that I can just go barge into the Oval Office any time I want? After all, any law allowing the President powers or freedoms I don't have would seem to violate this concept. Can I now negotiate treaties on the Nation's behalf? Again, why should some law made by congress prevent me from doing it, but allow the President or Congress to do it? I know it says that these provisions won't trump prior Constitutional rules, but a whole lot of this isn't directly covered in the Constitution. Overall, sounds like a really bad idea, done entirely for attention seeking purposes...
 
2013-10-22 02:49:45 PM
For "opposingviews", it ready pretty partisan...
 
2013-10-22 02:51:19 PM

naughtyrev: Rand Paul, who is pushing not just a simple piece of legislation but an actual amendment to the United States Constitution that would prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

So that means I could get those sweet insider trading benefits, right Rand? I think everyone will get on board with this amendment.


F'in this!
 
2013-10-22 02:52:41 PM

Mrbogey: The author misstates the basic facts of what transpired/argued and then proposes what would happen under his poor reading of the amendment.

With the advent of the information age, why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?


Advent?  What are you talking about Christmas calendars for?
HAW HAW this guy sure is dumb.
 
2013-10-22 02:53:28 PM

Aquapope: No, it means that Congress couldn't continue to skirt the law that prevents the rest of us from getting those sweet insider trading laws. Which is one of a million reasons why this Amendment won't go anywhere.


This.
 
2013-10-22 02:54:53 PM

Aquapope: No, it means that Congress couldn't continue to skirt the law that prevents the rest of us from getting those sweet insider trading laws. Which is one of a million reasons why this Amendment won't go anywhere.


Uh, no. That's not what this amendment says at all. And no, it wouldn't that.
 
2013-10-22 02:56:45 PM

what_now: Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid?


cdn.meme.li
 
2013-10-22 02:59:07 PM

RexTalionis: I just want to note: The Equal Rights Amendment will get ratified before this thing will. (Which is to say, never.)


The constitution already has an equal rights amendment (the 14th):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

...so passing another amendment saying the same thing would be superfluous.
 
2013-10-22 03:00:28 PM
FTFH: "Rand Paul thinks congress should get veteran's benefits..."

No Subby...he doesn't.
 
2013-10-22 03:01:35 PM

what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider?

img.pandawhale.com
 
2013-10-22 03:02:05 PM
 THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS NOT A POLITICAL PARTY.

It is a financial venture for people who want to make an obscene amount of money through short-term exploitation, at the cost of long-term consequences they will not live to see.

They DO NOT believe what they say.
They DO NOT have loyalty to a party.
They DO NOT hate what you hate.

They speak and act in any way that they think you want to them to, in order to gather your support and donations, and make obscene profits, and then move on in 5-8 years.

This requires a complete lack of empathy, and the willingness to screw not only you, me, and everyone else; they must be perfectly happy to screw GENERATIONS of people.  You, your children, your grandchildren, and at least SEVEN generations of Americans will suffer the effects of their actions.  And they don't care.  they don't.  They really don't.  They sleep comfortably, warm, and sound.  They truly DO NOT feel bad about what they have done, and are doing.  They grin when they think how they'll be dead long before all the bad things happen to everyone, everywhere.  They are sociopaths.  They truly believe they are LIFE'S WINNERS.

After all... they got rich.
 
2013-10-22 03:03:41 PM

jshine: RexTalionis: I just want to note: The Equal Rights Amendment will get ratified before this thing will. (Which is to say, never.)

The constitution already has an equal rights amendment (the 14th):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

...so passing another amendment saying the same thing would be superfluous.


I didn't say I endorse it. I'm just pointing out another Constitutional Amendment that went nowhere. But feel free to be patronizing about it.
 
2013-10-22 03:04:13 PM

jshine: RexTalionis: I just want to note: The Equal Rights Amendment will get ratified before this thing will. (Which is to say, never.)

The constitution already has an equal rights amendment (the 14th):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

...so passing another amendment saying the same thing would be superfluous.


Yeah, but Scalia told me that amendment clearly only applies to equal protection of people based on the color of their skin! You can tell by looking at the quill scratchings.
 
2013-10-22 03:05:46 PM
Politicians having to follow the same laws as the rest of us? What kind of idiot could ever think this could be a good idea?
 
2013-10-22 03:14:25 PM
Get a brain! Moran!

GO USA!
 
2013-10-22 03:17:58 PM

Sh0nuff: Politicians having to follow the same laws as the rest of us? What kind of idiot could ever think this could be a good idea?



are you like immune to the logic of what he's proposing?
 
2013-10-22 03:20:50 PM

what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


Oh, but they CAN force you to choose a new provider. Allow me to explain, my dear Watson. First, I work in the financial side of the healthcare industry. An actual primary care physician's practice, so I have the credentials to answer this question. There are insurance companies being forced to drop all types of coverage plans in order to comply with Obamacare. Some new plans are only hand picking a small (comparitively) group of participating physicians to participate with the "affordable" plan. Your health care is going to cost you more and provide less coverage. Your current physician may not be included to participate with the plans your current coverage offers or because the allowed amount (the amount the physician is actually paid) is reduced to the point of ridiculous and the doctor chooses to no long participate with your plan because he'd practically be working for free. What happens then? You are forced to choose a new physician in order to accomodate your health insurance plan or pay for your own insurance out of pocket in order to keep seeing your choice of a physician. This will cost you an astronomical amount of money.

Go ahead...tell me how wonderful Obamacare is going to be and I'll be happy to shoot all manner of holes in your pet theories. You don't know shiat about what a farce Obamacare is or how much it's going to end up costing you. Go ahead, sign up and hand the governement the rest of the information that the NSA hasn't already gathered about you. Idiot.
 
2013-10-22 03:23:33 PM
MyRandomName


cameroncrazy1984
(favorite: blamed tea-party 4 boston bombing said perp would not be islamist) :
MyRandomName: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

There are many stories of those who had insurance no longer having it. You are free to inform yourself.

Stories, sure. But actual data? Nope.

Define data. There is data showing companies dropping coverage. That is data. Are you that slow?

Yes, he is. Liberal blinders are huge.
 
2013-10-22 03:25:37 PM
Rand Paul thinks

forum.sportsmogul.com

I don't read political fiction.
 
2013-10-22 03:27:35 PM

ShardingGreat: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

Oh, but they CAN force you to choose a new provider. Allow me to explain, my dear Watson. First, I work in the financial side of the healthcare industry. An actual primary care physician's practice, so I have the credentials to answer this question. There are insurance companies being forced to drop all types of coverage plans in order to comply with Obamacare. Some new plans are only hand picking a small (comparitively) group of participating physicians to participate with the "affordable" plan. Your health care is going to cost you more and provide less coverage. Your current physician may not be included to participate with the plans your current coverage offers or because the allowed amount (the amount the physician is actually paid) is reduced to the point of ridiculous and the doctor chooses to no long participate with your plan because he'd practically be working for free. What happens then? You are forced to choose a new physician in order to accomodate your health insurance plan or pay for your own insurance out of pocket in order to keep seeing your choice of a physician. This will cost you an astronomical amount of money.

Go ahead...tell me how wonderful Obamacare is going to be and I'll be happy to shoot all manner of holes in your pet theories. You don't know shiat about what a farce Obamacare is or how much it's going to end up costing you. Go ahead, sign up and hand the governement the rest of the information that the NSA hasn't already gathered about you. Idiot.



The Farker you're trying to troll lives in Massachusetts , where 'ObamaCare' has been running strong since 2006 when Romney passed it into law.
 
2013-10-22 03:27:41 PM

OnlyM3: MyRandomName


cameroncrazy1984
(favorite: blamed tea-party 4 boston bombing said perp would not be islamist) :
MyRandomName: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

There are many stories of those who had insurance no longer having it. You are free to inform yourself.

Stories, sure. But actual data? Nope.

Define data. There is data showing companies dropping coverage. That is data. Are you that slow?
Yes, he is. Liberal blinders are huge.


Since he won't provide data, where are yours?
 
2013-10-22 03:29:44 PM

Aquapope: Ask him about his ophthalmology board certification.  When you can't operate within the rules, you make new rules.  Calvinball!


What a classy asshole he is.
 
2013-10-22 03:30:22 PM
Better wording might have been: "Congress shall not exempt itself from any law of general applicability."
 
2013-10-22 03:30:34 PM

what_now: Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


He thinks we are.

Remember, he's a Republican, and their usual electoral strategy is to throw full-bore derp out into the public, see what gets some traction, and repeat the lies until they get results.  No facts, no substance, just spin and propaganda.

Sad thing is, it works a good chunk of the time.
 
2013-10-22 03:32:56 PM

ShardingGreat: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

Oh, but they CAN force you to choose a new provider. Allow me to explain, my dear Watson. First, I work in the financial side of the healthcare industry. An actual primary care physician's practice, so I have the credentials to answer this question. There are insurance companies being forced to drop all types of coverage plans in order to comply with Obamacare. Some new plans are only hand picking a small (comparitively) group of participating physicians to participate with the "affordable" plan. Your health care is going to cost you more and provide less coverage. Your current physician may not be included to participate with the plans your current coverage offers or because the allowed amount (the amount the physician is actually paid) is reduced to the point of ridiculous and the doctor chooses to no long participate with your plan because he'd practically be working for free. What happens then? You are forced to choose a new physician in order to accomodate your health insurance plan or pay for your own insurance out of pocket in order to keep seeing your choice of a physician. This will cost you an astronomical amount of money.

Go ahead...tell me how wonderful Obamacare is going to be and I'll be happy to shoot all manner of holes in your pet theories. You don't know shiat about what a farce Obamacare is or how much it's going to end up costing you. Go ahead, sign up and hand the governement the rest of the information that the NSA hasn't already gathered about you. Idiot.


1/10. Account created: 2013-10-04 15:28:04. Nice try.
 
2013-10-22 03:33:44 PM

RightToWork: Better wording might have been: "Congress shall not exempt itself from any law of general applicability."


That's even dumber.


See here's the thing.  Health insurance is compensation.  What farkwits in the GOP are trying to do is give federal workers a pay cut before going into the exchanges out of spite, nothing more, nothing less.  There's no "exemption."
 
2013-10-22 03:38:23 PM

DarnoKonrad: That's even dumber.

See here's the thing. Health insurance is compensation. What farkwits in the GOP are trying to do is give federal workers a pay cut before going into the exchanges out of spite, nothing more, nothing less. There's no "exemption."


I'm not arguing the Obamacare "exemption" point. I'm just trying to clean up his messy amendment as an intellectual exercise. As I worded it, it might not prevent that specific action, but it would prevent a lot of other B.S. Congressional exemptions.
 
2013-10-22 03:40:11 PM

Snarfangel: Mrbogey: Oh if only I had worn my anti-glue suit, all of these sharp and witty barbs, which were completely unforeseeable, wouldn't have stuck to me.

That will teach you not to wear a rubber.


Too bad it didn't teach his dad.
 
2013-10-22 03:43:38 PM

RightToWork: DarnoKonrad: That's even dumber.

See here's the thing. Health insurance is compensation. What farkwits in the GOP are trying to do is give federal workers a pay cut before going into the exchanges out of spite, nothing more, nothing less. There's no "exemption."

I'm not arguing the Obamacare "exemption" point. I'm just trying to clean up his messy amendment as an intellectual exercise. As I worded it, it might not prevent that specific action, but it would prevent a lot of other B.S. Congressional exemptions.



No one knows what "general applicability" is supposed to mean, and we already have a clear and adjudicated legal principal called  "equal protection."
 
2013-10-22 03:47:04 PM

DarnoKonrad: RightToWork: DarnoKonrad: That's even dumber.

See here's the thing. Health insurance is compensation. What farkwits in the GOP are trying to do is give federal workers a pay cut before going into the exchanges out of spite, nothing more, nothing less. There's no "exemption."

I'm not arguing the Obamacare "exemption" point. I'm just trying to clean up his messy amendment as an intellectual exercise. As I worded it, it might not prevent that specific action, but it would prevent a lot of other B.S. Congressional exemptions.


No one knows what "general applicability" is supposed to mean, and we already have a clear and adjudicated legal principal called  "equal protection."


Laws are already written to be generally applicable. For example, Congress and the President could approve of a tax credit given to all businesses originally incorporated in Sharon, MA with less than $1 million in payroll whose exclusive industry is making ice cream in pint containers. That's a generally applicable law even though it, in practice, would almost certainly apply to just one company.
 
2013-10-22 03:49:28 PM

DarnoKonrad: No one knows what "general applicability" is supposed to mean


Actually, there is a mountain of existing case law on what it means in discrimination cases, first amendment cases, and other legal contexts.

and we already have a clear and adjudicated legal principal called "equal protection."

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment doesn't prevent Congress from exempting itself from laws. Paul's amendment is a (poor) attempt to do so. I respect the intent of it, even if the Obamacare exemption isn't in fact an exemption.
 
2013-10-22 03:54:04 PM

Serious Black: Laws are already written to be generally applicable. For example, Congress and the President could approve of a tax credit given to all businesses originally incorporated in Sharon, MA with less than $1 million in payroll whose exclusive industry is making ice cream in pint containers. That's a generally applicable law even though it, in practice, would almost certainly apply to just one company.


They call that the "rifleshot." However, it's worth pointing out that courts do examine intent, e.g., Obamacare surviving on the basis that it is a "tax" even though it calls itself a penalty.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report