Welcome Guest

#Calexit: Cal considering single payer with Obamacare

Posted on: February 27, 2017 at 09:15:17 CT

MUTGR MU

Posts:

68813

Member For:

24.79 yrs

Level:

User

M.O.B. Votes:

failing:

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-california-plan-20170219-story.html

...when it implodes, maybe Mexico will annex them.

Edited by MUTGR at 09:15:44 on 02/27/17

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

MESSAGE THREAD

#Calexit: Cal considering single payer with Obamacare - MUTGR MU - 2/27 09:15:17

Then we build the wall ....nm - tigertix MU - 2/27 09:24:26

Just like states SHOULD have done in the 1st place! - Spanky KU - 2/27 09:18:38

HC is an individual issue. (nm) - ummmm MU - 2/27 09:24:53

In theory, it should be an individual issue. In reality, it - Spanky KU - 2/27 09:50:52

It's reality, not theory - pickle MU

- 2/27 09:55:49

in reality it is an individual issue that government inserts - MizzouAstro MU

- 2/27 09:55:18

In reality, it is still an individual issue. - ummmm MU - 2/27 09:53:32

The reality is, it is a Federal issue usurped from states - Spanky KU - 2/27 10:41:00

If we were to accept your position, then nothing would be - ummmm MU - 2/27 10:43:27

States have the constitutional authority to interfere in - DHighlander KC - 2/27 09:33:45

Obamacare was not unconstitutional - pickle MU

- 2/27 09:57:14

So the commerce clause applies even when I do not choose to - DHighlander KC - 2/27 10:00:08

Yes, it applies even if you do not choose to buy a service. - pickle MU

- 2/27 10:07:25

It has been ruled constitutional, that does not make it so. - DHighlander KC - 2/27 10:23:28

First of all, it's constitutional based on the Constitution - pickle MU

- 2/27 11:20:52

So you are claim that my refusal to not buy a product is - DHighlander KC - 2/27 11:28:04

I don't by DirectTV - pickle MU

- 2/27 11:37:05

So congress can require that you subscribe? Commerce - DHighlander KC - 2/27 11:40:11

Yes, of course they can. They are regulating commerce - pickle MU

- 2/27 11:44:29

Pickle was being facetious, you know. (nm) - ummmm MU - 2/27 11:36:12

First of all, it was 3/5ths. Second of all, the Constitution - ummmm MU - 2/27 10:39:45

3/5th my mistake. But your other 'facts' were incorrect. - DHighlander KC - 2/27 11:20:39

You made a completely inaccurate comment, and you are now - ummmm MU - 2/27 11:25:33

Obvious typo since the sentence right before identified the - DHighlander KC - 2/27 11:38:15

Just say: - ummmm MU - 2/27 11:52:54

the 3/5 clause is so misinterpreted anyway. you realize it - blake1771 KC - 2/27 11:19:37

You should be directing these posts at DH. (nm) - ummmm MU - 2/27 11:25:49

Yes, it was a political compromise but one that actually - DHighlander KC - 2/27 11:24:36

these guys are "originalists" and imo, spend a lot of time - 90Tiger MU - 2/27 11:44:22

Constitutionally speaking, original intent is all that - ummmm MU - 2/27 11:56:55

Exactly (nm) - pickle MU

- 2/27 12:23:06

I wasn't talking about the Constitutional framework - ummmm MU - 2/27 09:46:31

So are food, shelter, clothing and employment. But states - DHighlander KC - 2/27 09:52:32

Under the framework of the Constitution, sure. (nm) - ummmm MU - 2/27 09:54:04