« FFFT3 Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Right-wing think-tank claims that even if there was irrefutable proof that Obamacare was saving lives, that would still be a very poor argument for its continued exisitance...  

By: zzstar in FFFT3 | Recommend this post (2)
Thu, 29 Jan 15 5:59 AM | 40 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Food For Further Thought 3
Msg. 08325 of 65535
(This msg. is a reply to 08324 by Zimbler0)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Shutup stupid. The House passed The ACA. Pelosi's House.

Now go eat some worms, jackass.


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Right-wing think-tank claims that even if there was irrefutable proof that Obamacare was saving lives, that would still be a very poor argument for its continued exisitance...
By: Zimbler0
in FFFT3
Thu, 29 Jan 15 5:55 AM
Msg. 08324 of 65535

OCU> Not according to the United States Supreme Court, the final forum for deciding what is and what is not Constitutional.


As I recall,
What the Supreme Court ruled on . . .
Was whether or not a certain 'penalty' was a tax
or not. And, I'm pretty sure the pantywaists on
said court got that wrong - as in if it was a tax
it was Un-constitutional because it originated in
the Senate, instead of the House . . . but if it was
a penalty it was Un-Constitutional and they'd have
had to toss obonzocare in the trash . . . So they
ruled it was a tax and legal.

But, my point is,

The Constitution is not some vaguely written 'word of
god' type document.

It clearly states that the role of the federal is
limited to what it says in the Constitution. And,
nowhere in the Constitution does it say the federal
is responsible for folks health care needs.

There is a very good reason why it was written that way.

If you ask nice, I might even try, once again, to explain it to you.

Zim.


« FFFT3 Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next