Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional, endangering coverage for 20 million

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Inisfallen said:
40.png
JonNC:
All I said was it is a reality that if against my will, government dictates healthcare and confiscates tax money in order to finance it, that’s coercion. It may be “legal”, but it is coercion nonetheless.
Click to expand...
You say that like it’s a bad thing… 😉
Click to expand...
Yeah. You caught me. 😁
 
JonNC said:
All I said was it is a reality that if against my will, government dictates healthcare and confiscates tax money in order to finance it, that’s coercion.
Click to expand...
That was not what you said and not what I responded to. You said:

As such, it is not compassion. It is not charity. It is solely government power.
As long as we recognize this,…

Yes, paying taxes is coercion, just like many have been coerced into having a Trump presidency, and the president is now being coerced into having a Congress that will not give him funding where he wants. That is the way elections work. Today, I was coerced into driving 35 on the way home. So while I think the word “coercion” is loaded in this context, I know it is accurate. It was the rest of what you see as reality that I do not agree with. I do not even believe the phrase “solely government power” has any real meaning in a democracy. Anything done carries, in some sense, the will (power) of the people.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Yes, paying taxes is coercion, just like many have been coerced into having a Trump presidency, and the president is now being coerced into having a Congress that will not give him funding where he wants.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is that taxation is supposed to be used to fund the enumerated powers granted to the general government. Healthcare is not included. Pass a constitutional amendment if you want that done.
Until then, it is coercion precisely because it is not in response to the consent of the governed.

No one is coerced into s Trump presidency anymore than they were co
 
JonNC said:
The problem with this is that taxation is supposed to be used to fund the enumerated powers granted to the general government. Healthcare is not included.
Click to expand...
This, again, is something I do not believe, any more than a Constitutional amendment was needed to fund Social Security.
 
pnewton said:
40.png
JonNC:
The problem with this is that taxation is supposed to be used to fund the enumerated powers granted to the general government. Healthcare is not included.
Click to expand...
This, again, is something I do not believe, any more than a Constitutional amendment was needed to fund Social Security.
Click to expand...
We disagree. I believe my view is closer to the original intent of the framers, but I appreciate the dialogue.
 
JonNC said:
Then it isn’t charity, it isn’t out of compassion, it isn’t in response to Christ’s call that we care for the least of His children. It is compulsory.
Click to expand...
And probably a ploy to get more votes (from all sides)!!!
 
pnewton said:
There is no charity it paying taxes, but our response to it is. Charity isn’t giving (freely or otherwise). Charity is a virtue that we have (or don’t) in us. We can see charity manifest in freely giving, but that giving is not the actual virtue. Likewise, we can see charity (or not) in the way we speak of the poor and our attitude toward them. This latter part concerns me, especially at this time of year.
Click to expand...
I’m wondering if you want to force people to be charitable with their own money? If you want to force them, then it’s not charity… right? Jesus would not “force” people to be kind or loving or charitable… he shows them the way and then lets them decide. That’s because he values FREEDOM more than anything. Freedom in his creatures, Freedom… Freedom to love God and love the neighbor. NOT coercion to give because someone thinks it’s a good thing… see the difference?
 
JonNC said:
You’re right. I used the wrong term. It is a legal document. It says what it says, and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.
There’s no enumerated power because that’s not a function of the general government. The 10th amendment confirms that other powers belong to the states and the people.
Those wishing to grant a new power over healthcare to the general government should offer a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...
worth re-reading…
 
petra22 said:
And probably a ploy to get more votes (from all sides)!!!
Click to expand...
This is what always crosses my mind when people complain about “the influence of money in our elections”, campaign finance reform, etc.
Politicians’ biggest source of campaign funds is taxpayers money, used to buy votes with the promise of government largess.
 
Last edited:
Congress tasked to provide for the national defense by raising an army, a navy, and organizing the militia. Your claim seems to be a bit of a stretch especially since the vast majority of people are not in the service.
 
sallybutler said:
Unless having healthy people helps the defense of the country.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Should everyone then get dental, vision, food, clothing, shelter, transportation, vacations (you know, for mental health), intact two parent family, etc. all guaranteed by government?

You’re right however, that we do need healthy people in order to build a defensive security wall along the southern border. 😉
 
petra22 said:
I’m wondering if you want to force people to be charitable with their own money?
Click to expand...
Charity is what is in us. A virtue cannot be forced. As to this equivalency of taxation being equal to force, yes it is, but no more than taxation being used for the road system some never use, parks some never go to, military some believe is sinfully huge, or (if it were approved) a wall stretching along the border. That is the nature of democracy and taxation.
 
Last edited:
That would be James, not me, and he was speaking of a general principle that speech reveals the heart.
 
Last edited:
What was a “curse” at the time? People believed that curses had power then, and when one person cursed another, the intent was to harm.

There are undoubtedly a few people nowadays who do that and nevertheless act charitably toward others. But I have never known one.

Good intentions are worthless in themselves, and often hide uncharity to oneself. Sentimental desires that someone else be obliged to help the poor are worse than useless. They’re harmful to all involved.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Sentimental desires that someone else be obliged to help the poor are worse than useless. They’re harmful to all involved.
Click to expand...
Sentimental ideas that help should be done only on an individual basis rather than a cooperative one are likely to be less effective and are thus harmful to all involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top