Don't you think the other news channels may have their own bias towards the healthcare debate & that by pointing out only 1 of these channels you increasing the production of biased news?
@BillyJoe1305 This is why you should never rely on one source only. That's the basis of scientific work. This is also the reason why I find it funnny that when AlJaazeera English started off, the US cable companies didn't want to air it. Because it would be interesting to see what Arabs think about US policies in the Middle East, no?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
Show me where the US is goven the power to force helathcare upon the citizens?
@heatbucspies55 Because the constitution is the unquestionable be all and end all of human rights. Because the men from 350 years ago would, of course, know better than any person today both scientifically and philosophically.
But they aren't saying "We think the constitution is wrong, it needs to be changed"
They're arguing that the healthcare bill doesn't violate the constitution, which is BS.
The constitution is supposed to dictate how the government runs, and if you think something that is not in line with the constitution is best for the US, you need to try to get it amended.
You shouldn't lie and weasel around it, which is what the people now are doing.
The commerce clause applies to interstate commerce, international commerce, and commerce with Indian tribes. If the healthcare law only applied to people whose healthcare involved those types of commerce, you could use that argument, but it doesn't,.
And it's more than just a tax too. So in both cases, it goes beyond that power, therefore it violates the tenth amendment.
I haven't studied Con officially, but I have read the constitution and I speak English, so that works.
@heatbucspies55 The Commerce Clause doesn't JUST apply to things that are directly commerce. It also applies to a whole host of things that affect interstate commerce. There is a fairly strong originalist argument you could make that the healthcare law goes beyond the commerce clause's authority (which I actually might agree with).
The problem is that this law clearly falls within the Taxing power. The penalty provision is basically just a tax on those who don't buy health insurance.
Fox owes everyone the truth and we are never going to get it from them regardless of which hack is on there spouting. (I refuse to use News when referring to that channel)
Interesting... so hospitals are forced to provide a service, by the government, even if the person lacks the funds or health care . But, also ironic how liberals are using free market principles to pass the heath care law. Last time I went to the urgent care the bill was less than 200$. So if some one refuses to buy health care, they should pay a fine witch could go their pay medical bills. Is this bill really to help the common people, or the insurance companies?
It's for the people, obviously. Outside the grasp of insurance companies.
But, see, here's maybe a parable you've missed: doctors educate themselves to save lives. If a person went into a hospital bleeding profusely from a wound, or very sickly indeed, are you saying hospital staff should turn this person away just because he/or she lacks the funds to pay for it? I wouldn't say they're being "forced" to do anything, would you? They're just doing what they educated themselves to do.
Slowly, people ARE starting to realize what Fox and other media outlets are all about... It's time for the News to be News again. 3 part solution: 1. Every channel must provide a 1 hour News program WITHOUT COMMERCIALS. 2. News programs should not be rated by any Ratings system. 3. All News Channels live by the same rules, but are "Pay TV" for revenues as opposed to advertising.
Maybe it's constitutional in the United States of Money, maybe we'll live there someday ... I'm currently in the United States of America, maybe you are too ... ... The constitution is a box of brick, only worth something if not placed on the sinking sand of public opinion. The right foundation is paraphrased in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and 'the pursuit of happiness' (ownership- and management-of property, etc.)
LiberalViewer, I'm inching towards that the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold the law. I think all four liberal justices will vote to uphold the law. I think they can get Kennedy and possibly Roberts and Scalia to rule to uphold the law. Alito and Thomas are uber conservative whackjobs that will definetely vote to strike down the law IMO.
Rockafellers are so excited for the government bills to enforce people to pay for big phama that they own, and not dealing with people of knowledge and Truth about the fact that All nature cures and heals forever and thats why FAFSA or Federal student aid dont support schools like that, not to mention, people can grow their own, and its hard to patent that for the bankers corporations, enslavement of the minds!
Your entire argument is flawed. You assume that states don't have the right to implement universal health care, but they do. You only want the federal govt to do it, because you know people would move to another state, since there is no restriction on freedom of movement. Then again, I bet you support restricting the movement of companies and individuals. After all, they aren't people, just faceless individuals that you believe owe you something.
its funny about republicans when they start a war they dont need the constituiton, when they approve illegal searchs they dont need the constitution, but when it might cost them a few bucks they need the constitution
yes I think that Fox owes us a lot more analysis about both sides of the issue. I dont see why Geraldo especially owes us this though.
Hopefully the health reform law will not be struck down by the supreme court. I think its time republican politicians stop wasting the different court's time with this. We all knew health reform was needed. its not perfect but it is a good step in the right direction to stop health insurance companies from taking advantage of everybody.
@chefextra Strike it down. It s a bullshit law. It should be universal healthcare. Now it makes you purchase healthcare whether or not you can afford it. You pay it yourself. It is a handout to the healthcare industry. I'm a huge liberal and if you support this bill you do not know what it really says. How do you think it passed with the Republicans? The insurance companies are begging for it to pass so they can make billions.
I'm afraid it is a misunderstanding to believe that capitalism actually exist in the US. If the US had real capitalism, the banks wouldn't have gotten their trillions in bailout money from the government. The banks made bad business decisions and deserved to fail. Capitalism isn't bad, it's fair. CORPORATISM (The government helping out special interest groups like wall street bankers) is what actually deserves attention for protest and isn't fair to anyone.
Check out Canada's ban on false and misleading news through the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Fight for the passage of such a ban here in the USA!
I hate how every law, not just this one, passed by congress is "interstate commerce." I'm pretty sure the framers didn't intend for it to be abused this way.
TO FOX NEWS: STOP TALKING about the ECONOMY. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A "WORKING" ECONOMY. THOSE are just NUMBERS!!! There are people that FREELOAD and people that DON'T. GET OFF THE AIRWAYS AND LEAVE US ALL ALONE!!!......Hypocrites!!!................thanks, we can all go home now...
So US citizens don't have to pay for things like e.g. military protection service, judicial service, police protection service, infrastructure maintenance service? I'm asking because i thought taxes are compulsory in US.
Republicans dont give a shit about the constitution, they just love to recognize it exist when it serve their goal. If they want to pass something thats unconstitutional, they simply ignore that the constitution exists, and insist that anyone who points it out is unpatriotic.
I should also point out this is just the stupid portion of republicans.
I'm from the UK and over in Europe almost everyone I speak to, whether from here in England, or Spain, Italy, France or anywhere else in Europe, we're often confused as to why the US Constitution is held in such high regard. While certainly, its a founding document for the legilation of US laws, doesn't the fact that its incredibly out of date change its ability to accurately dictate good policy?
Why is the constitution seemingly held in a position of almost HOLY doctrine?
Just to clarify I don't mean I speak to everyone from all those countries, just that regardless of the country of origin the oppinion tends to be the same.
@Grysham Because clowns dominate our country and dictate our national conversation to nothing more than glorified propaganda. Don't forget the 3rd amendment- the right to not quarter soldiers.... nuff said. It's like the ten commandments and how we consider it a moral standard- yet it says nothing about things like rape but mandates the banning of idol worship... It's a circus on the west side of the atlantic for sure
@Grysham I'd say look at our different civil right interpretations. From what I understand, Britain has no constitution, rights are made into laws and then practised. This is opposed with a pre-defined constitution. These two modes of operation cause different reactions for people. In GB thinking, it is understood that laws and rights change frequently and need to be accommodated for. In US thinking, it is understood and propagated that our rights should be practised everywhere and are forever.
@Grysham It's not even just propagation, it's what that pre-defined constitution symbolises as well. This not even mentioning the pride Americans have for the creation of the document because of its historical weight. Our Declaration of Independence was all well and good, but this document made us into a real nation. We'd basically failed with the Articles of Confederation, so this was the first national constitution that actually worked for everyone and brought solid consensus to the new nation
I understand its significance, thats not under question in any way. It was, at the time it was made, a good ground for establishing a nation.
The problem is that it's now severly dated, having been established in 1787. Over two hundred years now. Imagine if other nations still operated under the laws established when they first began. Since 1787 and 2011, the world and the country have changed substantially and those laws no longer give the best guidance for obvious reasons.
Imagine using medieval law to try and establish legal grounds for the internet. Or 16th century law for establishing cival rights. Our views, our perspectives, our notions of morality, the very society in which we opperate are now substantially difference and we KNOW more than we did back then. We have a better understanding of how we can overcome our problems.
But if blind adhearance not to reason, but to tradition halt that progress then tradition must be put aside.
@Grysham I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, our objective view of the established ideals in the Constitution are too ingrained into the people's minds. I was really just trying to explain why people might defend the Constitution so vehemently in my reply, not supporting it. :)
@Grysham Because it is quite literally the LAW OF THE LAND. It's efficacy at changing over time is irrelevant and it will not be replaced any time soon.
@Grysham Because, There is something cvalled the bill of rights. That is part of the Constitution. You obviously don't fully understand what a republic is and what America is supposed to be. If we just abandon it, thrn we are saying ok, we're ready to be slaves. Just come tell us everything to do masters. Global government is coming, and it woun't improve the standard of living for the 90-99%. It will stay the same, or get worse.
@Grysham If Americans wake up and take bake the republic from the global bankers who really control everything, including Europe. People like you will be begging to come here, to escape totalitarianism. You'll be gratefullfor the Constitution then.
@Grysham we're often confused as to why the US Constitution is held in such high regard.
Because thanks to it we have freedom of religion speech the press and the right to defend ourselves (ONLY IF ADHERED TO) and it lead to america becoming the greatest nation in history.
Meanwhile you euro-peons are slaves. Your government dictates where you can live or work IF you can live or work, there is no freedom and you've got Muslims running loose killing and your not allwed to criticise them.
@Grysham The reason it is held in Reguard is because its the Law of the Land here in the United States, just like in England you have the constitution of the United Kingdom which list your laws. Since you asked me a question I will ask you one, Why is your Country and most of Europe turning Socalist and have thier heads up thier asses?
Actually, no. England does not have a constitution in that sense. Our laws are subject to change, and there's no particular body of law which is held to supreme high standards with which we judge other laws. That's not to say laws aren't based on an existing body of law, but that there is no one aspect which has been held, unchanging, for over two hundred years that we all draw upon as a matter of course.
My question wasn't an attack on your country. America does have plenty going for it, but there are two things that often mark the sterotype of an American.
1) Patriotism to a fault
2) A certain degree of arrogance along the lines of "America is the best country in the world".
America is an OK country. But it's not the best, nor the worst. In some areas it performs better, in others it performs worse. It's just another country, not the centre of the world.
"The reason it is held in Reguard is because its the Law of the Land "
I don't see an actual arguement here. It's just the "Law of the Land". Why is that a significant property? How does that equip us with any ability to judge it's capacity to effectively govern its people?
If the law of the land for a country was:
"Kill every immogrants first born"
Would it be just or moral or good simply by virtue of being the "Law of the Land"?
don't paint me as an idealouge. These issues are complex, that being said the constitution is the best frame work that has ever been set for a country. look at the results. The most stable government in the world.
I said this to someone else, so I may as well repeat it. I'm not saying America is bad, nor am I saying or pointing to another country as the perfect example of utopia on earth.
But America has some big problems. Problems other countries just don't have. To simply blow off the success' of somewhere else and proclaim "America is the best" doesn't help to change anything for the better. Look for where something is successful somewhere else and attempt that change.
And as for the constitution being the best framwork that has ever been set for a country... can you really say that imperically? Do you have a knowledge of the historic framworks from which every other country in the world was based?
Perhaps you do, and you'll give me a link to a bunch of papers that catalogue and compare every nations development with eachother. But I suspect that isn't the case.
Well, the problem is the constitution IS pretty darn great, even in modern times. Where all the issues come from is when people try to "interpret" the constitution to mean anything else then EXACTLY what is says (like the 2nd amendment for example) or try to imply one thing that the constitution says means another thing that wasn't written and we should "read between the lines" (like socialism being unconstitutional) Aside from that, the constitution is pretty much fool-proof.
The point I've been trying to make. Alot. Is that it doesn't matter if the constitution is good or not. It's not the issue. The point is trying to make laws that work and allow a country to function successfully. Basing absolutely everything on only one set of rules that had no way to take into account the changes of the last two hundred years and saying anything that doesn't fit, I.E. unconstitutional, is automatically bad is not a very good method for progress.
Have you read the constitution? Its some some "ye olde tyme" lawbook encouraging pistols at noon and shotgun weddings! All of the amendments are there to guarantee equal opportunity and protections to all people. Freedom of speech is being trampled, Right to bare arms is pretty much abolished, to name a few. There is nowhere in the constitution implying socialized healthcare is unconstitutional ANYWHERE. We can still be very modern following the constitution to a "T".
"Well, the problem is the constitution IS pretty darn great, even in modern times. Where all the issues come from is when people try to "interpret" the constitution to mean anything else then EXACTLY what is says"
Replace the word "constitution" with the word for any holy book. For ease of reference, lets use the word "bible".
This is almost, word for word, exactly what christians have said to me about the bible...
This seems to be a red herring. If you would look at my channel profile you will quickly see I am in NO WAY an advocate of religion. Also look up the difference between a republic and democracy. America was and always had been intended to be a republic based along the strict following of the constitution.
What I was trying to point out is how the constitution is regarded. The way many people speak about it is more akin to a holy text, or text of some spirituality, than to a set of laws made by fallable, human beings some two hundred years ago.
Blind faith isn't just something for religion alone. You can be as fundamentalist about an idealogy as you can a religious doctrine. Frankly, I see little difference between the two.
Its a pedigree of intellectual inclination. Through logic I agree that aside from the prohibition act (thanks fundies) the rights set out in the constitution are the clearest and simplest guidelines which all can objectively agree upon to give the most amount of individual freedom without breaching others freedom though ones own free actions. The paper itself is there to be proof for those who are not so inclined to believe in freedom. -cont
-What the constitution lays out (when followed to the "t") is in my opinion a perfect lettering of all basic human right outside of modern advances. There are things which should be added in my opinion, but everything currently there is sound and should remain un-altered. Thanks to the nature of this documentation and its direct link with the founding of our country, it has a sense of immunity in regards to standard state or federal law. I think this is good, because it shouldn't be altered.
@Grysham cause its our constitution. thats where we get our rights from! r u seriously asking y we think its imperable to uphold the constitutional rights which give us our freedoms and with out it would most certainly deny them. good god r u dense
So you're reply to my question "why is the constitution held in a position of almost holy doctrine?" is:
It's where we get out rights from.
Does it not, perhaps, occur to you that the constitution isn't what gives you your rights, its the laws made by those who govern? Other nations also have many of the same rights as America. Freedom of Speech among them. Yet other nations don't use the constitution as their base. Having the constitution does not necesitate having rights.
@Grysham yes ur country mght have safeguarded ur rights on some othr legislation. to each its own, so long as the ppl of that country have the right(s) thats truly all that counts. for us tho,in the US, we have our rights in our constitution. thats all. so ur argument is baseless. yes our rights are established thru the constitution. so i dont understand what ur beef is? if it were written somewhere else like your country than its simply written somehwere else. here, its called constitution. duh
1. I think the constitutionality is iffy, but I'm not a lawyer, just a poli. sci student. 2. Its going down, the court is doing the elephant walk nowadays, thats all there is to it.
I think though, that JUST the individual mandate is going down. And everyone else seems to have forgotten that was a gift to industry. So now people will be able to buy insurance AFTER they get really sick, just the way Republicans were afraid of. Good plan GOP.
@Pensfan8726 Thats like saying just because its okay and constitutional for mothers to murder unborn babies it means that its constitutional to murder their already born children.
For the record, thanks to mandatory car insurance, the cost has risen.
@kaffeinsuchtiger Everything a person really needs to live should be Social, like national and local security, healthcare, firepatrol, roads, education and a very very small amount kapital support to buy food, cloth and maby a place to stay cheep. Everything a person wants should be earned by hard taxpaing work. This is how we do it in Denmark. A land where 52% of the 99% are allow to make the laws. A democroctic hard to understand system that works fine.
Thats right. The constitution says that you must pay for cost rising ineffective health insurance regardless if you can pay or not. If the insurance you are forced to pay for wont pay for your care or cost continues to go up due to the mandate taking away the incentive to keep prices low, toughluck. You either end up in Jail, a homeless shelter or dead. Just like in Massachusetts
@Denverlibertarion It was merely an observation. However, for the sake of argument i will grant you your opinion towards the nature of that observation. I still have yet to see a correlation between my "snyde remark" and your conclusion and assertion that i enjoy spending your money. If there are alternate observations to which i am ignorant of, please cite them for me.
@Denverlibertarion Hey we meet again. You're still creating straw men and spewing right wing tripe. Spending your money? The top tax rate during the Reagan admin. was 50%. Now it's 35%. Was Reagan spending all of your money? We, in the middle class could get a tax cut and not add to the deficit by doing away with the tax cut for the top 2% (still below Reagan). Cut funding to the Bush wars. Cut Defense by 2/3rds, cutting down personnel but taking good care of the remainder of troops and Vets.
@Denverlibertarion We cut funds to new weapon systems (you know $600 screwdrivers and the like). We would still be spending more than the next 9 countries. We should cut corporate welfare and have big finance and trans-national corps. pay their fair share of taxes. Reinstate the Securities Act of 1933 and the Glass-Steagall Act to keep Wall Street and the Banks honest.
@Denverlibertarion Strengthen environmental regulations and make corps that externalizing their costs on the rest of us by polluting the air, water and land pay, whatever it costs, to clean up their messes like BP. Some of the money from the defense budget cuts, new taxes, and fines on the corporations should go to producing new jobs. The more people working, the more revenue cutting the deficit.
@Denverlibertarion The part of the trillions saved we could finance a good single payer health care system like the rest of the civilized world. Before this all happens we need to revamp the govt (take it back from the 1%). 1st we vote out all congressmen and senators who are in the hip pocket of the wealthy. Make lobbying illegal (both ways, politicians and lobbyist). Pass an amendment stating that corporations are not the same as people and don't have the same rights.
@Denverlibertarion The corps and the top 1% could no longer buy politicians and elections thereby making them more responsive to the electorate. This would also keep billionaires from buying "pseudo-grassroots movements" ,like the tea party, a minority that makes a lot of noise spewing propaganda from their puppet masters. Hmmmm did I leave any thing else out. Oh, yeah ya'll need to lose the yellow snake flag and go back to waving Old Glory.
@Denverlibertarion I'll leave you with a quote as food for thought. "I hope we shall ... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to trial and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -- Thomas Jefferson
2. We entitle people already to health care in the ER, saying people aren't paying for it directly and so they have to buy health insurance is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.
3. 119.2 million in 2006 went to the ER, only 13% were serious enough to be hospitalized. It would probably much easier to just say hospitals can't turn away patients with a life threatening problem. Don't you think people would buy insurance if it wasn't "free" for them?
@Denverlibertarion Socialism is the people controlling the means of production and property as a whole. Not Bureucrats, not politicians, not bankers, not oligarchs, the people. Democractic ownership. Capitalists like you meanwhile let 1% of the population control jobs and wealth. So without government reg. They can exploit and work them to death then turn around and charge them nearly all of what they earn for rent and food. THATS CAPITALISM
i'll do time in prison before i obey any law that violates my rights. enough pissed-off citizens could band together and behead politicians who fuck with the will of the people...then take this country back.
@atheistphilosopher the will of dumbed down uneducated welfare recipients you mean?
We would be taking our country back fromthe politicians who undermine our civil liberties spend our childrens future into debt and take away our jobs and homes. Something we should have done over a decade ago.
@atheistphilosopher This bill had to be sold to the people, few besides the prius -driving left were pushing this bill AHEAD OF more pressing biz like jobs, the war and bringing the troops home (unkept promise). You wont make me buy sub-par shit that I didn' t ask for. And what about the parts snuck in at the last minute? Why are so many states trying to repeal it if it were the will of the people, as you say?
@ballparkfrank33Obama made healthcare a top priority in his campaign. The people voted-healthcare is passed. Won't buy sub-par shit you didn't ask for? Well, it's better than what you got now. Healthcare reform will not be repealed and Obama will win a second term. Thems just the facts.
@atheistphilosopher no sweetie, " what i got now" are options- the kind of health care options that the Fed. Gov. would like to take away. He'll win a second term because the GOP is aloof and can't find a winner in that whole bunch of fucks, except for Ron Paul-who has too many enemies to be elected. (Even though he is an honorable man).
I'm just wondering, but can you shift your ending thoughts to be less leading questions? I felt the question here was a leading question in the way it tried to force an agreement. Of course, it might just me by British way of speaking, but I think that the way the question was presented would be considered leading universally.
Medical care cost have gone up, right along with the malpractice insurance docs and nurses have to pay because of personal injury ambulance chasers and frivolous law suits - oh, and politicians. Politicians are taking good care of themselves on our dime - have all their needs met (restaurants, hair care, travel expenses, etc.) and then tell the rest of us how to live. Hardly. They go on these TV shows, but I doubt they watch them - or read the comments on these YT vids.
@mefano And while were at it lets change the constitution to require Jews and Blacks to live in ghettos.
Once you start you don't stop.
Have fun paying 30% higher costs and being oppresed by raghead immigrants in that potemkin village you live in mef. In the end when The government refuse togiveyou life saving care for whatever reason or your forced to convert to islam or die you'll wish you had a constitution like ours....
At a REPUBLICAN candidate's debate, I would expect a questioner to ask questions from a REPUBLICAN point of view. So of course it has a right wing spin. It's supposed to. The debate is for REPUBLICANS.
@hallavast So if you really wanted to simply answer the question or put your own input into the discussion, that's fine. But you don't have to tell Republicans how they have to ask questions within their own party to do it. You might have answered the "authority to mandate demand" question with your "authority to mandate supply" answer. But you didn't. You instead implied that the question was inherently wrong and then said that because you have an answer, the question should not be asked.
I love when people say the enumerated powers exercised in the application of this law are 'unprecedented', when the Supreme Court has several rulings that in the most literal sense of the word, make this law precedented.
Anybody else see the irony that one of the few provisions of the health care bill corporatist enough to garner Republican support is now their focal point for attacking this law?
Here is a good question for that propagandist, Where in the constitution does it say you can inact laws based on christian law? Where does it say you christians have the right to force you mental disorder on my kids in school by teaching them creation science or demanding a school to be defunded for not teaching it? How is that for a scewwed question.
I don't know what the supreme court will do... But, I don't like that the people have to buy health care insurance - I will prefer the gov't to give it to everyone, cheaply, and let the private compete aside... Like the post office and fed ex. Why? Because it's seem like the right thing to do; USA already give health-care to prisoner, the army, congressman, senator, the president, many secretary...
"The Supreme Court has held that Congress has broad authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause. From 1937 to 1994 it did not invalidate a single law as unconstitutional for exceeding the scope of Congress’s Commerce Power."
The state basically says that its powers have no boundaries. So it must be constitutional. Awesome argument, you should really stick with that.
2nd, are we really turning to 18th century political theorists for how we should model our healthcare system? These guys knew nothing about modern medicine. They lived in times where the treatment to gangrene was to cut off a leg... unless you were black, in which case you were just left to die.
These were times where any white male could make a living by simply buying a farm at 2 cents an acre, when a gun would fire once a minute and probably miss every time.
No, its not constitutional. The constitution allows the government to provide for the general welfare. Mandating private insurance is having profit-driven individuals unaffiliated with the central government and not reasonably regulating them is not the government providing for the general welfare. Its the government continuing its pattern to sell us out to our new corporate overlords. If you hadn't changed a word in this bill but had a republican back it, Libs would be rioting.
@Russlem Good points. Perhaps they did just create a policy that was less effective, less constitutionally sound, and less supporting of the general welfare.
@Denverlibertarion Really? Because we weren't toiling in the fields for our lords when those 18th century theorists were doing their work. . . Instead we were trading alcohol and infected blankets to Indians for furs to make millions.
More likely, without those 18th century theorists who wrote our constitution... we'd be Canada... which is actually doing a lot better.
@Denverlibertarion "We were trading alcohol and infected blankets... to make millions." It almost sounds like you are justifying it, though I know you mean different. Still, its as if you unconsciously voiced the biggest flaw with your ideals. Greed doesn't create sustainable and socially sensible practices. Greed is too short-sighted.
I don't disagree. The constitution was radical, influential, and important to history. It's still relevant, but it's not a map to resolving 21st century issues.
@LeadBeIIy It almost sounds like you are justifying it. WHEN THE HELL DID I DO THAT? I already told you its because of government that it happened. Out of control federal government. What you get when you chuck out the founders philosophy in favor of modernist liberal ideas.
Greed doesn't create sustainable and socially sensible practices.
Which is why our founders created the constitution to prevent that. But Nooooo... Government knows best so WE have to implement socialism.
Just sayin... i love how after all you comments ( LiberalViewer ) no matter how stupid of a comment your replying to, your allways so nice and thank them for commenting :-) thank you, thank you very much :-)
As a foreigner, this entire debate just seems hilarious to me. We practically invented social healthcare in Germany while we still had an EMPEROR. Right-wing politics and this kind of healthcare system are not incompatible. I really don't know why so many normal people in the US are so opposed to it, as the only people who would really be negatively affected are the super-rich. Really, if it weren't so pathetically sad, I would laugh out loud.
@LiberalCounterpart the media and propagandists have created tumult through fear and lies, tied it into God, & started the US v. THEM mindset. Big companies want their money-government run health care might make them less wealthy. So the corporations finance candidates, news programs and spin doctors to prey upon the under educated and the trusting. These are the regular and kind people who aren't being explained to why their party is behaving corruptly. It is so sad.
I'm vehemently against this bill and I'm for single-payer healthcare. This bill is not about hurting the rich, its about forcing the poor to buy insurance from PRIVATE CORPORATE carriers who will just deny their claims anyway. Any rational person should be against this bill, it doesn't do ONE thing to improve our healthcare system and puts billions in the pockets of private health insurers. No public option, no oversight, all corporate greed.
Since when has the constitution been a factor in determining republican agendas. They can easily work around the constitution while saying they suport the constitution. They will always do everything to destroy this country and attack and condemn anything that helps and ignore their hypocrisy. The system will never change until we hit rock bottom AND then the republicans will still support their dealers and condemn the therapists.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size can see that the law is PLAINLY unconstitutional. and I'M NOT a republican. I can READ. perhaps you should read the constitution before you start regurgitation leftist spin.
@Trauncher wrote: "...the law is PLAINLY unconstitutional. and I'M NOT a republican. I can READ. perhaps you should read the constitution..."
I've read the US Constitution many times, taken several courses in constitutional law, and practiced law for over 15 years. I've also read the court opinions on this issue from the 6th and 11th Circuits.
For a link to the 6th Circuit opinion click "Show more" below the video player. Can you find a flaw in the reasoning of the court?
@MoonKittenJD Wrong. The Constitution enumerates the powers of our governing bodies. If there is a law passed by the federal government that is not under the guidelines laid out by the constitution, it is "unconstitutional". That's not to say a state can't pass laws, but that is neither here nor there. The problem is the constitution is often vague and it is left to courts to clarify. The clause in question, the commerce clause, is what would grant the gov. the right to pass
@beenz07 this law and it has been interpreted quite broadly by previous courts. These precedents set should ensure that this bill is ruled constitutional. Those who oppose it must prove that the commerce clause DOES NOT apply to this bill, not that there is something in the constitution forbidding the health care bill.
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy and paste and vote up this everywhere
bill maher is more accurate than fox news.....and he gets stoned as fuck.....in the words of jon stewart BOOM!
ronjonsurf39 2 weeks ago
Don't you think the other news channels may have their own bias towards the healthcare debate & that by pointing out only 1 of these channels you increasing the production of biased news?
BillyJoe1305 1 month ago
@BillyJoe1305 This is why you should never rely on one source only. That's the basis of scientific work. This is also the reason why I find it funnny that when AlJaazeera English started off, the US cable companies didn't want to air it. Because it would be interesting to see what Arabs think about US policies in the Middle East, no?
GaolisVideoLog 1 month ago
"Again, Heraldo was basically just a straight man for his republican guest there.." Muahahaha, I'm loving this!
FistyCarrera 1 month ago
@FistyCarrera Oh, right, Geraldo.
FistyCarrera 1 month ago
Dude, there's nothing biased about a fact.
The Healthcare law is unconstitutional, fact.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
Show me where the US is goven the power to force helathcare upon the citizens?
I'm just stating facts here.
heatbucspies55 2 months ago
@heatbucspies55 Because the constitution is the unquestionable be all and end all of human rights. Because the men from 350 years ago would, of course, know better than any person today both scientifically and philosophically.
yersimapestis 1 month ago in playlist Fox News Bias
@yersimapestis
But they aren't saying "We think the constitution is wrong, it needs to be changed"
They're arguing that the healthcare bill doesn't violate the constitution, which is BS.
The constitution is supposed to dictate how the government runs, and if you think something that is not in line with the constitution is best for the US, you need to try to get it amended.
You shouldn't lie and weasel around it, which is what the people now are doing.
heatbucspies55 1 month ago
@heatbucspies55 Uh, under the taxing power and the commerce clause? Have you studied con law at ALL?
teoeo 1 month ago
@teoeo
The commerce clause applies to interstate commerce, international commerce, and commerce with Indian tribes. If the healthcare law only applied to people whose healthcare involved those types of commerce, you could use that argument, but it doesn't,.
And it's more than just a tax too. So in both cases, it goes beyond that power, therefore it violates the tenth amendment.
I haven't studied Con officially, but I have read the constitution and I speak English, so that works.
heatbucspies55 1 month ago
@heatbucspies55 The Commerce Clause doesn't JUST apply to things that are directly commerce. It also applies to a whole host of things that affect interstate commerce. There is a fairly strong originalist argument you could make that the healthcare law goes beyond the commerce clause's authority (which I actually might agree with).
The problem is that this law clearly falls within the Taxing power. The penalty provision is basically just a tax on those who don't buy health insurance.
teoeo 1 month ago
The people at FOX are not paied to think, They're payed to speak.
Coramelimane 2 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
Fox owes everyone the truth and we are never going to get it from them regardless of which hack is on there spouting. (I refuse to use News when referring to that channel)
afklein1 2 months ago
Interesting... so hospitals are forced to provide a service, by the government, even if the person lacks the funds or health care . But, also ironic how liberals are using free market principles to pass the heath care law. Last time I went to the urgent care the bill was less than 200$. So if some one refuses to buy health care, they should pay a fine witch could go their pay medical bills. Is this bill really to help the common people, or the insurance companies?
derrixk 2 months ago
@derrixk
It's for the people, obviously. Outside the grasp of insurance companies.
But, see, here's maybe a parable you've missed: doctors educate themselves to save lives. If a person went into a hospital bleeding profusely from a wound, or very sickly indeed, are you saying hospital staff should turn this person away just because he/or she lacks the funds to pay for it? I wouldn't say they're being "forced" to do anything, would you? They're just doing what they educated themselves to do.
Pitchguest 2 months ago
it would make scence that the supreme court would vote for the bill, but u have to take into acount the loyabists
norrinradd84 2 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
I think you're deluded. Congress should not have the right to force me to buy health care.
Christianrocker1990 2 months ago
Seriously, Geraldo. That moustache is ridiculous.
Warmech 3 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
Fox news just spits out information that weighs on their partisan side... like i am now :D......... D:
ZAGGNUT1 3 months ago
Liberalviewer, you could be politician!
bdoherty44 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DOWN WITH FOX NEWS
Slowly, people ARE starting to realize what Fox and other media outlets are all about... It's time for the News to be News again. 3 part solution: 1. Every channel must provide a 1 hour News program WITHOUT COMMERCIALS. 2. News programs should not be rated by any Ratings system. 3. All News Channels live by the same rules, but are "Pay TV" for revenues as opposed to advertising.
Bawbster1 3 months ago
Maybe it's constitutional in the United States of Money, maybe we'll live there someday ... I'm currently in the United States of America, maybe you are too ... ... The constitution is a box of brick, only worth something if not placed on the sinking sand of public opinion. The right foundation is paraphrased in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and 'the pursuit of happiness' (ownership- and management-of property, etc.)
mythmanjay 3 months ago
When did liberal's become pro-force? Aren't you more of a social democrat?
We all know Fox News has it's head up it's ass, but the point stands. You shouldn't force people to buy healthcare or buy anything.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 3 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH We force hospitals to provide care to people guy
Where is Fox arguing that we end mandatory emergency care?
override367 3 months ago
LiberalViewer, I'm inching towards that the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold the law. I think all four liberal justices will vote to uphold the law. I think they can get Kennedy and possibly Roberts and Scalia to rule to uphold the law. Alito and Thomas are uber conservative whackjobs that will definetely vote to strike down the law IMO.
sonicdoommario 3 months ago
@sonicdoommario
What, they are whackjobs for making the correct decision?
For actually assessing the law based on it's constitutionality, I thought that was their job.
heatbucspies55 1 month ago
Rockafellers are so excited for the government bills to enforce people to pay for big phama that they own, and not dealing with people of knowledge and Truth about the fact that All nature cures and heals forever and thats why FAFSA or Federal student aid dont support schools like that, not to mention, people can grow their own, and its hard to patent that for the bankers corporations, enslavement of the minds!
Hydrogenagent 3 months ago
Your entire argument is flawed. You assume that states don't have the right to implement universal health care, but they do. You only want the federal govt to do it, because you know people would move to another state, since there is no restriction on freedom of movement. Then again, I bet you support restricting the movement of companies and individuals. After all, they aren't people, just faceless individuals that you believe owe you something.
groam6666 3 months ago
DAT MUSTACHE JUST MAKES THE GUY MORE CONVINCING IF U GET PASSED THAT YOU SEE HOW MUCH OF A LYING SAC OF CRAP HE IS !.!
punishshot 3 months ago
its funny about republicans when they start a war they dont need the constituiton, when they approve illegal searchs they dont need the constitution, but when it might cost them a few bucks they need the constitution
realwillbill 3 months ago
yes I think that Fox owes us a lot more analysis about both sides of the issue. I dont see why Geraldo especially owes us this though.
Hopefully the health reform law will not be struck down by the supreme court. I think its time republican politicians stop wasting the different court's time with this. We all knew health reform was needed. its not perfect but it is a good step in the right direction to stop health insurance companies from taking advantage of everybody.
chefextra 3 months ago 2
@chefextra Strike it down. It s a bullshit law. It should be universal healthcare. Now it makes you purchase healthcare whether or not you can afford it. You pay it yourself. It is a handout to the healthcare industry. I'm a huge liberal and if you support this bill you do not know what it really says. How do you think it passed with the Republicans? The insurance companies are begging for it to pass so they can make billions.
bizzyb0ne017 3 months ago
Ok The Democrats have MSMBC, CNN, Oh and prity much every other news media outlet out there. Center right folks have one, get over yourselfs.
MrTimkan7719 3 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
I'm afraid it is a misunderstanding to believe that capitalism actually exist in the US. If the US had real capitalism, the banks wouldn't have gotten their trillions in bailout money from the government. The banks made bad business decisions and deserved to fail. Capitalism isn't bad, it's fair. CORPORATISM (The government helping out special interest groups like wall street bankers) is what actually deserves attention for protest and isn't fair to anyone.
bmrphy20 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hate Fox News?
Check out Canada's ban on false and misleading news through the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Fight for the passage of such a ban here in the USA!
UNLebanon 3 months ago
@SpinyNorman416
Well said.
Grysham 3 months ago
Wikipedia / wiki/General_Welfare_clause
You're welcome.
aidanjt 3 months ago
Rico... Suave..
nosensetoitatall 3 months ago
I hate how every law, not just this one, passed by congress is "interstate commerce." I'm pretty sure the framers didn't intend for it to be abused this way.
omegafighters 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TO FOX NEWS: STOP TALKING about the ECONOMY. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A "WORKING" ECONOMY. THOSE are just NUMBERS!!! There are people that FREELOAD and people that DON'T. GET OFF THE AIRWAYS AND LEAVE US ALL ALONE!!!......Hypocrites!!!................thanks, we can all go home now...
goodsama77777 3 months ago
So US citizens don't have to pay for things like e.g. military protection service, judicial service, police protection service, infrastructure maintenance service? I'm asking because i thought taxes are compulsory in US.
DrStorm81 3 months ago
The law is unconstitutional , most the time I like your videos but the welfare police state needs to go.
chazman800 3 months ago
THEY ALREADY MAKES US USE A SERVICE- IT'S CALLED SOCIAL SECURITY!
BCBtheBeastlyBeast 4 months ago
Geraldo looks like a pedophile
firepower01 4 months ago in playlist More videos from LiberalViewer
Republicans dont give a shit about the constitution, they just love to recognize it exist when it serve their goal. If they want to pass something thats unconstitutional, they simply ignore that the constitution exists, and insist that anyone who points it out is unpatriotic.
I should also point out this is just the stupid portion of republicans.
boonw 4 months ago
I'm from the UK and over in Europe almost everyone I speak to, whether from here in England, or Spain, Italy, France or anywhere else in Europe, we're often confused as to why the US Constitution is held in such high regard. While certainly, its a founding document for the legilation of US laws, doesn't the fact that its incredibly out of date change its ability to accurately dictate good policy?
Why is the constitution seemingly held in a position of almost HOLY doctrine?
Grysham 4 months ago 35
@Grysham
Just to clarify I don't mean I speak to everyone from all those countries, just that regardless of the country of origin the oppinion tends to be the same.
Grysham 4 months ago
@Grysham i'm from mexico, and i think the exact same thing, one more country to add to your list i guess haha
TheArutnev 4 months ago
@Grysham Because clowns dominate our country and dictate our national conversation to nothing more than glorified propaganda. Don't forget the 3rd amendment- the right to not quarter soldiers.... nuff said. It's like the ten commandments and how we consider it a moral standard- yet it says nothing about things like rape but mandates the banning of idol worship... It's a circus on the west side of the atlantic for sure
muetter 3 months ago in playlist More videos from LiberalViewer
@Grysham I'd say look at our different civil right interpretations. From what I understand, Britain has no constitution, rights are made into laws and then practised. This is opposed with a pre-defined constitution. These two modes of operation cause different reactions for people. In GB thinking, it is understood that laws and rights change frequently and need to be accommodated for. In US thinking, it is understood and propagated that our rights should be practised everywhere and are forever.
wizardsbane 3 months ago
@Grysham It's not even just propagation, it's what that pre-defined constitution symbolises as well. This not even mentioning the pride Americans have for the creation of the document because of its historical weight. Our Declaration of Independence was all well and good, but this document made us into a real nation. We'd basically failed with the Articles of Confederation, so this was the first national constitution that actually worked for everyone and brought solid consensus to the new nation
wizardsbane 3 months ago
@wizardsbane
I understand its significance, thats not under question in any way. It was, at the time it was made, a good ground for establishing a nation.
The problem is that it's now severly dated, having been established in 1787. Over two hundred years now. Imagine if other nations still operated under the laws established when they first began. Since 1787 and 2011, the world and the country have changed substantially and those laws no longer give the best guidance for obvious reasons.
Grysham 3 months ago
@wizardsbane
Imagine using medieval law to try and establish legal grounds for the internet. Or 16th century law for establishing cival rights. Our views, our perspectives, our notions of morality, the very society in which we opperate are now substantially difference and we KNOW more than we did back then. We have a better understanding of how we can overcome our problems.
But if blind adhearance not to reason, but to tradition halt that progress then tradition must be put aside.
Grysham 3 months ago
@Grysham I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, our objective view of the established ideals in the Constitution are too ingrained into the people's minds. I was really just trying to explain why people might defend the Constitution so vehemently in my reply, not supporting it. :)
wizardsbane 3 months ago
@Grysham Because it is quite literally the LAW OF THE LAND. It's efficacy at changing over time is irrelevant and it will not be replaced any time soon.
beenz07 3 months ago
@Grysham Because, There is something cvalled the bill of rights. That is part of the Constitution. You obviously don't fully understand what a republic is and what America is supposed to be. If we just abandon it, thrn we are saying ok, we're ready to be slaves. Just come tell us everything to do masters. Global government is coming, and it woun't improve the standard of living for the 90-99%. It will stay the same, or get worse.
TheSleepingbandit 3 months ago
@Grysham If Americans wake up and take bake the republic from the global bankers who really control everything, including Europe. People like you will be begging to come here, to escape totalitarianism. You'll be gratefullfor the Constitution then.
TheSleepingbandit 3 months ago
@Grysham we're often confused as to why the US Constitution is held in such high regard.
Because thanks to it we have freedom of religion speech the press and the right to defend ourselves (ONLY IF ADHERED TO) and it lead to america becoming the greatest nation in history.
Meanwhile you euro-peons are slaves. Your government dictates where you can live or work IF you can live or work, there is no freedom and you've got Muslims running loose killing and your not allwed to criticise them.
Denverlibertarion 3 months ago
@Denverlibertarion
Hahaha, best reply so far. Thanks ^^
Grysham 3 months ago
@Grysham The reason it is held in Reguard is because its the Law of the Land here in the United States, just like in England you have the constitution of the United Kingdom which list your laws. Since you asked me a question I will ask you one, Why is your Country and most of Europe turning Socalist and have thier heads up thier asses?
MrTimkan7719 3 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
@MrTimkan7719
Actually, no. England does not have a constitution in that sense. Our laws are subject to change, and there's no particular body of law which is held to supreme high standards with which we judge other laws. That's not to say laws aren't based on an existing body of law, but that there is no one aspect which has been held, unchanging, for over two hundred years that we all draw upon as a matter of course.
Grysham 3 months ago
@MrTimkan7719
My question wasn't an attack on your country. America does have plenty going for it, but there are two things that often mark the sterotype of an American.
1) Patriotism to a fault
2) A certain degree of arrogance along the lines of "America is the best country in the world".
America is an OK country. But it's not the best, nor the worst. In some areas it performs better, in others it performs worse. It's just another country, not the centre of the world.
Grysham 3 months ago
@MrTimkan7719
"The reason it is held in Reguard is because its the Law of the Land "
I don't see an actual arguement here. It's just the "Law of the Land". Why is that a significant property? How does that equip us with any ability to judge it's capacity to effectively govern its people?
If the law of the land for a country was:
"Kill every immogrants first born"
Would it be just or moral or good simply by virtue of being the "Law of the Land"?
Grysham 3 months ago
@Grysham
are your for real? the constitution is the most well written piece of law ever
therealallpro 3 months ago
@therealallpro
OMG, Inorite? I didn't realise until just now, but if only the constitution could be global the world would be saved.
Grysham 3 months ago
@Grysham
don't paint me as an idealouge. These issues are complex, that being said the constitution is the best frame work that has ever been set for a country. look at the results. The most stable government in the world.
therealallpro 3 months ago
@therealallpro
Oh. I thought in your original message you we're being sarcastic. Hoo boy, did I misread that one...
Grysham 3 months ago
@therealallpro
I said this to someone else, so I may as well repeat it. I'm not saying America is bad, nor am I saying or pointing to another country as the perfect example of utopia on earth.
But America has some big problems. Problems other countries just don't have. To simply blow off the success' of somewhere else and proclaim "America is the best" doesn't help to change anything for the better. Look for where something is successful somewhere else and attempt that change.
Grysham 3 months ago
@therealallpro
And as for the constitution being the best framwork that has ever been set for a country... can you really say that imperically? Do you have a knowledge of the historic framworks from which every other country in the world was based?
Perhaps you do, and you'll give me a link to a bunch of papers that catalogue and compare every nations development with eachother. But I suspect that isn't the case.
Grysham 3 months ago
@Grysham
Well, the problem is the constitution IS pretty darn great, even in modern times. Where all the issues come from is when people try to "interpret" the constitution to mean anything else then EXACTLY what is says (like the 2nd amendment for example) or try to imply one thing that the constitution says means another thing that wasn't written and we should "read between the lines" (like socialism being unconstitutional) Aside from that, the constitution is pretty much fool-proof.
bulbinking 3 months ago
@bulbinking
The point I've been trying to make. Alot. Is that it doesn't matter if the constitution is good or not. It's not the issue. The point is trying to make laws that work and allow a country to function successfully. Basing absolutely everything on only one set of rules that had no way to take into account the changes of the last two hundred years and saying anything that doesn't fit, I.E. unconstitutional, is automatically bad is not a very good method for progress.
Grysham 3 months ago
Have you read the constitution? Its some some "ye olde tyme" lawbook encouraging pistols at noon and shotgun weddings! All of the amendments are there to guarantee equal opportunity and protections to all people. Freedom of speech is being trampled, Right to bare arms is pretty much abolished, to name a few. There is nowhere in the constitution implying socialized healthcare is unconstitutional ANYWHERE. We can still be very modern following the constitution to a "T".
bulbinking 3 months ago
@bulbinking
"Well, the problem is the constitution IS pretty darn great, even in modern times. Where all the issues come from is when people try to "interpret" the constitution to mean anything else then EXACTLY what is says"
Replace the word "constitution" with the word for any holy book. For ease of reference, lets use the word "bible".
This is almost, word for word, exactly what christians have said to me about the bible...
Grysham 3 months ago
@Grysham
This seems to be a red herring. If you would look at my channel profile you will quickly see I am in NO WAY an advocate of religion. Also look up the difference between a republic and democracy. America was and always had been intended to be a republic based along the strict following of the constitution.
bulbinking 3 months ago
@bulbinking
I'm not saying you are an advocate for religion.
What I was trying to point out is how the constitution is regarded. The way many people speak about it is more akin to a holy text, or text of some spirituality, than to a set of laws made by fallable, human beings some two hundred years ago.
Blind faith isn't just something for religion alone. You can be as fundamentalist about an idealogy as you can a religious doctrine. Frankly, I see little difference between the two.
Grysham 3 months ago
@Grysham
Its a pedigree of intellectual inclination. Through logic I agree that aside from the prohibition act (thanks fundies) the rights set out in the constitution are the clearest and simplest guidelines which all can objectively agree upon to give the most amount of individual freedom without breaching others freedom though ones own free actions. The paper itself is there to be proof for those who are not so inclined to believe in freedom. -cont
bulbinking 3 months ago
-What the constitution lays out (when followed to the "t") is in my opinion a perfect lettering of all basic human right outside of modern advances. There are things which should be added in my opinion, but everything currently there is sound and should remain un-altered. Thanks to the nature of this documentation and its direct link with the founding of our country, it has a sense of immunity in regards to standard state or federal law. I think this is good, because it shouldn't be altered.
bulbinking 3 months ago
@Grysham cause its our constitution. thats where we get our rights from! r u seriously asking y we think its imperable to uphold the constitutional rights which give us our freedoms and with out it would most certainly deny them. good god r u dense
bistnenutte 3 months ago
@bistnenutte
So you're reply to my question "why is the constitution held in a position of almost holy doctrine?" is:
It's where we get out rights from.
Does it not, perhaps, occur to you that the constitution isn't what gives you your rights, its the laws made by those who govern? Other nations also have many of the same rights as America. Freedom of Speech among them. Yet other nations don't use the constitution as their base. Having the constitution does not necesitate having rights.
Grysham 3 months ago
@Grysham yes ur country mght have safeguarded ur rights on some othr legislation. to each its own, so long as the ppl of that country have the right(s) thats truly all that counts. for us tho,in the US, we have our rights in our constitution. thats all. so ur argument is baseless. yes our rights are established thru the constitution. so i dont understand what ur beef is? if it were written somewhere else like your country than its simply written somehwere else. here, its called constitution. duh
bistnenutte 3 months ago
@Grysham Becaues radical christians are in charge
gooyzit 3 months ago
1. I think the constitutionality is iffy, but I'm not a lawyer, just a poli. sci student. 2. Its going down, the court is doing the elephant walk nowadays, thats all there is to it.
I think though, that JUST the individual mandate is going down. And everyone else seems to have forgotten that was a gift to industry. So now people will be able to buy insurance AFTER they get really sick, just the way Republicans were afraid of. Good plan GOP.
darkhawk123 4 months ago
Well if the govt already makes us buy car insurance then i dont see why itd be unconstitutional to make us buy health insurance
Pensfan8726 4 months ago 13
@Pensfan8726 Thats like saying just because its okay and constitutional for mothers to murder unborn babies it means that its constitutional to murder their already born children.
For the record, thanks to mandatory car insurance, the cost has risen.
Denverlibertarion 4 months ago
@Pensfan8726 No one is required to drive a vehicle. You can't get around being alive (other than death).
kaffeinsuchtiger 3 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
@kaffeinsuchtiger Everything a person really needs to live should be Social, like national and local security, healthcare, firepatrol, roads, education and a very very small amount kapital support to buy food, cloth and maby a place to stay cheep. Everything a person wants should be earned by hard taxpaing work. This is how we do it in Denmark. A land where 52% of the 99% are allow to make the laws. A democroctic hard to understand system that works fine.
roguekie 3 months ago
@roguekie ...In a welfare state sure.
kaffeinsuchtiger 3 months ago
Thats right. The constitution says that you must pay for cost rising ineffective health insurance regardless if you can pay or not. If the insurance you are forced to pay for wont pay for your care or cost continues to go up due to the mandate taking away the incentive to keep prices low, toughluck. You either end up in Jail, a homeless shelter or dead. Just like in Massachusetts
AND I UNDERSTAND LV IS AN ACLU ATTORNEY!
ACLU=ANTI CONSTITUTION LITIGATION UNION
Denverlibertarion 4 months ago
@Denverlibertarion You like typing, don't you?
santosscribbles 4 months ago
@santosscribbles You like spending my money don't you?
Denverlibertarion 4 months ago
@Denverlibertarion im interested in knowing what observation of my character has led you to that conclusion.
santosscribbles 4 months ago
@santosscribbles Your snyde remarks towards me.
Denverlibertarion 3 months ago
@Denverlibertarion It was merely an observation. However, for the sake of argument i will grant you your opinion towards the nature of that observation. I still have yet to see a correlation between my "snyde remark" and your conclusion and assertion that i enjoy spending your money. If there are alternate observations to which i am ignorant of, please cite them for me.
santosscribbles 3 months ago
@Denverlibertarion Hey we meet again. You're still creating straw men and spewing right wing tripe. Spending your money? The top tax rate during the Reagan admin. was 50%. Now it's 35%. Was Reagan spending all of your money? We, in the middle class could get a tax cut and not add to the deficit by doing away with the tax cut for the top 2% (still below Reagan). Cut funding to the Bush wars. Cut Defense by 2/3rds, cutting down personnel but taking good care of the remainder of troops and Vets.
philfromearth 4 months ago
@Denverlibertarion We cut funds to new weapon systems (you know $600 screwdrivers and the like). We would still be spending more than the next 9 countries. We should cut corporate welfare and have big finance and trans-national corps. pay their fair share of taxes. Reinstate the Securities Act of 1933 and the Glass-Steagall Act to keep Wall Street and the Banks honest.
philfromearth 4 months ago
@Denverlibertarion Strengthen environmental regulations and make corps that externalizing their costs on the rest of us by polluting the air, water and land pay, whatever it costs, to clean up their messes like BP. Some of the money from the defense budget cuts, new taxes, and fines on the corporations should go to producing new jobs. The more people working, the more revenue cutting the deficit.
philfromearth 4 months ago
@Denverlibertarion The part of the trillions saved we could finance a good single payer health care system like the rest of the civilized world. Before this all happens we need to revamp the govt (take it back from the 1%). 1st we vote out all congressmen and senators who are in the hip pocket of the wealthy. Make lobbying illegal (both ways, politicians and lobbyist). Pass an amendment stating that corporations are not the same as people and don't have the same rights.
philfromearth 4 months ago
@Denverlibertarion The corps and the top 1% could no longer buy politicians and elections thereby making them more responsive to the electorate. This would also keep billionaires from buying "pseudo-grassroots movements" ,like the tea party, a minority that makes a lot of noise spewing propaganda from their puppet masters. Hmmmm did I leave any thing else out. Oh, yeah ya'll need to lose the yellow snake flag and go back to waving Old Glory.
philfromearth 4 months ago
@Denverlibertarion I'll leave you with a quote as food for thought. "I hope we shall ... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to trial and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -- Thomas Jefferson
philfromearth 4 months ago
1. Duhh fox is biased, and so are you lol.
2. We entitle people already to health care in the ER, saying people aren't paying for it directly and so they have to buy health insurance is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.
3. 119.2 million in 2006 went to the ER, only 13% were serious enough to be hospitalized. It would probably much easier to just say hospitals can't turn away patients with a life threatening problem. Don't you think people would buy insurance if it wasn't "free" for them?
groam6666 4 months ago
Just nationalize health insurance, make the wealthy pay for it. They have it easy.
turnofffox 4 months ago
@turnofffox YEAAAAHHHHH! Make those who succeed and work hard pay for those who wont.
Denverlibertarion 4 months ago
@Denverlibertarion As opposed to making the poor pay a higher percentage in taxes than the rich like you libertario(a)n fascists like?
turnofffox 4 months ago
@turnofffox Libertarian fascists? Since when was freedom the same as fascism? Hitler and the fascists support most of the policies you liberals do!
Denverlibertarion 3 months ago
@Denverlibertarion THe only freedom libertarians stand for is the freedom of the strong to exploit the weak.
turnofffox 3 months ago
@turnofffox No that's socialism.
Denverlibertarion 3 months ago
@Denverlibertarion Socialism is the people controlling the means of production and property as a whole. Not Bureucrats, not politicians, not bankers, not oligarchs, the people. Democractic ownership. Capitalists like you meanwhile let 1% of the population control jobs and wealth. So without government reg. They can exploit and work them to death then turn around and charge them nearly all of what they earn for rent and food. THATS CAPITALISM
turnofffox 3 months ago
i'll do time in prison before i obey any law that violates my rights. enough pissed-off citizens could band together and behead politicians who fuck with the will of the people...then take this country back.
ballparkfrank33 4 months ago
@ballparkfrank33 The will of the people voted for the Congress and the President who enacted this law. Who would you take the country back from?
atheistphilosopher 4 months ago
@atheistphilosopher the will of dumbed down uneducated welfare recipients you mean?
We would be taking our country back fromthe politicians who undermine our civil liberties spend our childrens future into debt and take away our jobs and homes. Something we should have done over a decade ago.
Denverlibertarion 4 months ago
@atheistphilosopher This bill had to be sold to the people, few besides the prius -driving left were pushing this bill AHEAD OF more pressing biz like jobs, the war and bringing the troops home (unkept promise). You wont make me buy sub-par shit that I didn' t ask for. And what about the parts snuck in at the last minute? Why are so many states trying to repeal it if it were the will of the people, as you say?
ballparkfrank33 4 months ago
@ballparkfrank33Obama made healthcare a top priority in his campaign. The people voted-healthcare is passed. Won't buy sub-par shit you didn't ask for? Well, it's better than what you got now. Healthcare reform will not be repealed and Obama will win a second term. Thems just the facts.
atheistphilosopher 3 months ago
@atheistphilosopher no sweetie, " what i got now" are options- the kind of health care options that the Fed. Gov. would like to take away. He'll win a second term because the GOP is aloof and can't find a winner in that whole bunch of fucks, except for Ron Paul-who has too many enemies to be elected. (Even though he is an honorable man).
ballparkfrank33 1 month ago
Just saw a poll that stated that only 25% of Americans are actually against the healthcare bill. Gee I wonder who were among that 25%?
stefers08 4 months ago
@stefers08 I for one wonder who did that poll.
Denverlibertarion 4 months ago
*point out, not do
SkaterProse 4 months ago
And nbc / cbs isn't bias towards it aswell, but more left bias. Oh wait you are too arrogant and two faced to do that
SkaterProse 4 months ago
I'm just wondering, but can you shift your ending thoughts to be less leading questions? I felt the question here was a leading question in the way it tried to force an agreement. Of course, it might just me by British way of speaking, but I think that the way the question was presented would be considered leading universally.
pokepuncher 4 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
Medical care cost have gone up, right along with the malpractice insurance docs and nurses have to pay because of personal injury ambulance chasers and frivolous law suits - oh, and politicians. Politicians are taking good care of themselves on our dime - have all their needs met (restaurants, hair care, travel expenses, etc.) and then tell the rest of us how to live. Hardly. They go on these TV shows, but I doubt they watch them - or read the comments on these YT vids.
Jbear9 4 months ago
Fox should have some semblance of journalism ethics. Unfortunately Fox thinks their job is to turn soft brains into mush.
Fox's omissions don't surprise me any more.
Fox is on at work all day. I haven't noticed them covering the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study. Can't find it on their web site either.
xdassinx 4 months ago
Florida Attorney General
ninjatroels 4 months ago
If its not found constitutional, you need to change your constitution. Cheers from Sweden
mefano 4 months ago
@mefano And while were at it lets change the constitution to require Jews and Blacks to live in ghettos.
Once you start you don't stop.
Have fun paying 30% higher costs and being oppresed by raghead immigrants in that potemkin village you live in mef. In the end when The government refuse togiveyou life saving care for whatever reason or your forced to convert to islam or die you'll wish you had a constitution like ours....
Denverlibertarion 4 months ago
At a REPUBLICAN candidate's debate, I would expect a questioner to ask questions from a REPUBLICAN point of view. So of course it has a right wing spin. It's supposed to. The debate is for REPUBLICANS.
hallavast 4 months ago
@hallavast So if you really wanted to simply answer the question or put your own input into the discussion, that's fine. But you don't have to tell Republicans how they have to ask questions within their own party to do it. You might have answered the "authority to mandate demand" question with your "authority to mandate supply" answer. But you didn't. You instead implied that the question was inherently wrong and then said that because you have an answer, the question should not be asked.
hallavast 4 months ago
I love when people say the enumerated powers exercised in the application of this law are 'unprecedented', when the Supreme Court has several rulings that in the most literal sense of the word, make this law precedented.
manonthemount 4 months ago
i love that this channel exists
pdasch0 4 months ago
Anybody else see the irony that one of the few provisions of the health care bill corporatist enough to garner Republican support is now their focal point for attacking this law?
manonthemount 4 months ago 3
Woha! Someone's gotta lay off the self tanning cream!
Wkterr 4 months ago
Here is a good question for that propagandist, Where in the constitution does it say you can inact laws based on christian law? Where does it say you christians have the right to force you mental disorder on my kids in school by teaching them creation science or demanding a school to be defunded for not teaching it? How is that for a scewwed question.
pistolpete1st 4 months ago
Anyone else see that anti Obama Solyndra advertisement before the video
357849414 4 months ago
I don't know what the supreme court will do... But, I don't like that the people have to buy health care insurance - I will prefer the gov't to give it to everyone, cheaply, and let the private compete aside... Like the post office and fed ex. Why? Because it's seem like the right thing to do; USA already give health-care to prisoner, the army, congressman, senator, the president, many secretary...
therrydicule 4 months ago
From the 6th Circuit opinion:
"The Supreme Court has held that Congress has broad authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause. From 1937 to 1994 it did not invalidate a single law as unconstitutional for exceeding the scope of Congress’s Commerce Power."
The state basically says that its powers have no boundaries. So it must be constitutional. Awesome argument, you should really stick with that.
Xasew 4 months ago
1st, it's constitutional.
2nd, are we really turning to 18th century political theorists for how we should model our healthcare system? These guys knew nothing about modern medicine. They lived in times where the treatment to gangrene was to cut off a leg... unless you were black, in which case you were just left to die.
These were times where any white male could make a living by simply buying a farm at 2 cents an acre, when a gun would fire once a minute and probably miss every time.
LeadBeIIy 4 months ago 23
@LeadBeIIy
No, its not constitutional. The constitution allows the government to provide for the general welfare. Mandating private insurance is having profit-driven individuals unaffiliated with the central government and not reasonably regulating them is not the government providing for the general welfare. Its the government continuing its pattern to sell us out to our new corporate overlords. If you hadn't changed a word in this bill but had a republican back it, Libs would be rioting.
Russlem 4 months ago
@Russlem Good points. Perhaps they did just create a policy that was less effective, less constitutionally sound, and less supporting of the general welfare.
LeadBeIIy 4 months ago
@LeadBeIIy Those 18th centurty theorists are the basis of the freedom you enjoy today. Otherwise you'd be toiling in the wheat fields for your lord.
And if you spoke out, you'd be killed.
These were times [blah blah blah stalinist propaganda blah blah blah]
SO MOVE TO FUCKING NORTH KOREA IF YOU THINK THAT OUR FREEDOM IS RACIST!
Denverlibertarion 4 months ago
@Denverlibertarion Really? Because we weren't toiling in the fields for our lords when those 18th century theorists were doing their work. . . Instead we were trading alcohol and infected blankets to Indians for furs to make millions.
More likely, without those 18th century theorists who wrote our constitution... we'd be Canada... which is actually doing a lot better.
LeadBeIIy 4 months ago
@LeadBeIIy we were trading alcohol and infected blankets to Indians for furs to make millions.
Thanks to the federal government which over stepped its constitutional boundaries and commited a massacre.
More likely, without those 18th century theorists who wrote our constitution... we'd be Canada... which is actually doing a lot better.
why did so many canadians come and immigrate here over the centuries?
the freedoms enjoyed in Europe and Canada were inspired by our constitution.
Denverlibertarion 4 months ago
@Denverlibertarion "We were trading alcohol and infected blankets... to make millions." It almost sounds like you are justifying it, though I know you mean different. Still, its as if you unconsciously voiced the biggest flaw with your ideals. Greed doesn't create sustainable and socially sensible practices. Greed is too short-sighted.
I don't disagree. The constitution was radical, influential, and important to history. It's still relevant, but it's not a map to resolving 21st century issues.
LeadBeIIy 4 months ago
@LeadBeIIy It almost sounds like you are justifying it. WHEN THE HELL DID I DO THAT? I already told you its because of government that it happened. Out of control federal government. What you get when you chuck out the founders philosophy in favor of modernist liberal ideas.
Greed doesn't create sustainable and socially sensible practices.
Which is why our founders created the constitution to prevent that. But Nooooo... Government knows best so WE have to implement socialism.
Denverlibertarion 4 months ago
@LeadBeIIy How am I justifiying it? Since when?
Greed doesn't create sustainable and socially sensible practices.
Another reason to get government off our backs.
The constitution was radical, influential, and important to history. It's still relevant, but it's not a map to resolving 21st century issues.
And you'd prefer as an alternative to our sacred consitution as what? The communist manifesto? Mein Kempf?
Denverlibertarion 3 months ago
@Denverlibertarion Oh, were we still having this conversation?
I had kind of given up... Your ability to create fallacious arguments and inane juxtapositions are far superior to those of anyone I've ever met.
Touché.
Anyways, I need to get back to toiling in the cubical for my feudal lor... I mean boss.
LeadBeIIy 3 months ago
Just sayin... i love how after all you comments ( LiberalViewer ) no matter how stupid of a comment your replying to, your allways so nice and thank them for commenting :-) thank you, thank you very much :-)
Mrpunkid7 4 months ago
Fact: America has the worse health/care system out of all the "western" countries.
CiliosX 4 months ago 2
As a foreigner, this entire debate just seems hilarious to me. We practically invented social healthcare in Germany while we still had an EMPEROR. Right-wing politics and this kind of healthcare system are not incompatible. I really don't know why so many normal people in the US are so opposed to it, as the only people who would really be negatively affected are the super-rich. Really, if it weren't so pathetically sad, I would laugh out loud.
LiberalCounterpart 4 months ago 2
@LiberalCounterpart the media and propagandists have created tumult through fear and lies, tied it into God, & started the US v. THEM mindset. Big companies want their money-government run health care might make them less wealthy. So the corporations finance candidates, news programs and spin doctors to prey upon the under educated and the trusting. These are the regular and kind people who aren't being explained to why their party is behaving corruptly. It is so sad.
ammyanne 4 months ago
@LiberalCounterpart
I'm vehemently against this bill and I'm for single-payer healthcare. This bill is not about hurting the rich, its about forcing the poor to buy insurance from PRIVATE CORPORATE carriers who will just deny their claims anyway. Any rational person should be against this bill, it doesn't do ONE thing to improve our healthcare system and puts billions in the pockets of private health insurers. No public option, no oversight, all corporate greed.
Russlem 4 months ago
Since when has the constitution been a factor in determining republican agendas. They can easily work around the constitution while saying they suport the constitution. They will always do everything to destroy this country and attack and condemn anything that helps and ignore their hypocrisy. The system will never change until we hit rock bottom AND then the republicans will still support their dealers and condemn the therapists.
i2v2s 4 months ago
Comment removed
i2v2s 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size can see that the law is PLAINLY unconstitutional. and I'M NOT a republican. I can READ. perhaps you should read the constitution before you start regurgitation leftist spin.
Trauncher 4 months ago
@Trauncher wrote: "...the law is PLAINLY unconstitutional. and I'M NOT a republican. I can READ. perhaps you should read the constitution..."
I've read the US Constitution many times, taken several courses in constitutional law, and practiced law for over 15 years. I've also read the court opinions on this issue from the 6th and 11th Circuits.
For a link to the 6th Circuit opinion click "Show more" below the video player. Can you find a flaw in the reasoning of the court?
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 months ago 37
@LiberalViewer Hurr, I dun liek smurt peepurls, sur i'ma gonna sai he r dumbs.
hagamablabla 4 months ago
@LiberalViewer You're awesome.
Mosixman 4 months ago
@Trauncher my shoe size is 130
TomValedro 4 months ago
@Trauncher Give us more detail. I get your vitriol and hyperbole now give me your facts....
MichaelnChristine 4 months ago
@Trauncher Its settled Obingo is unconstitutional
AthenasConquest 4 months ago
@Trauncher what section of the constitution does it violate? i've never onced had anyone give me an answer. not even a false answer...
MoonKittenJD 4 months ago 6
@MoonKittenJD Wrong. The Constitution enumerates the powers of our governing bodies. If there is a law passed by the federal government that is not under the guidelines laid out by the constitution, it is "unconstitutional". That's not to say a state can't pass laws, but that is neither here nor there. The problem is the constitution is often vague and it is left to courts to clarify. The clause in question, the commerce clause, is what would grant the gov. the right to pass
beenz07 3 months ago
@beenz07 this law and it has been interpreted quite broadly by previous courts. These precedents set should ensure that this bill is ruled constitutional. Those who oppose it must prove that the commerce clause DOES NOT apply to this bill, not that there is something in the constitution forbidding the health care bill.
beenz07 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's not enough to say "Vote Ron Paul"
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy and paste and vote up this everywhere
brscic 4 months ago
Govt forces US to have car insurance
ammyanne 4 months ago