Deleted
Joined: May 11, 2024 22:23:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 11:47:41 GMT -5
Ironic the right was so adament about "government telling us what medical procedures we can or can't have" but in the last month have been for Scott mandating this and Perry mandating ultrasounds. Do you understand the difference between Federal and State Laws? While I don't agree with Perry's ultrasound deal, this is a STATE issue. It ONLY affects Texas. If other states approve a similar mandate then that is based on their STATE GOV'T. There's a HUGE difference. I can easily move out of Texas. It's a little harder to up and move out of the country.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 17, 2011 11:48:58 GMT -5
Ironic the right was so adament about "government telling us what medical procedures we can or can't have" but in the last month have been for Scott mandating this and Perry mandating ultrasounds. Do you understand the difference between Federal and State Laws? While I don't agree with Perry's ultrasound deal, this is a STATE issue. It ONLY affects Texas. If other states approve a similar mandate then that is based on their STATE GOV'T. There's a HUGE difference. I can easily move out of Texas. It's a little harder to up and move out of the country. Some people will never respect states rights to make determinations for themselves.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 11:49:57 GMT -5
Ironic the right was so adament about "government telling us what medical procedures we can or can't have" but in the last month have been for Scott mandating this and Perry mandating ultrasounds. Do you understand the difference between Federal and State Laws? While I don't agree with Perry's ultrasound deal, this is a STATE issue. It ONLY affects Texas. If other states approve a similar mandate then that is based on their STATE GOV'T. There's a HUGE difference. I can easily move out of Texas. It's a little harder to up and move out of the country. It's a blatant invasion of privacy.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jun 17, 2011 11:50:13 GMT -5
A government mandate is a government mandate whether done on a federal or a local level.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 11:51:02 GMT -5
A government mandate is a government mandate whether done on a federal or a local level. +1
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 11, 2024 22:23:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 11:52:46 GMT -5
Yea...real simple..... Now you have to open a new government agency to run through all these....... real simple....... Or....you can just add this responsibility to the current departments handling the welfare in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 11, 2024 22:23:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 11:53:47 GMT -5
Do you understand the difference between Federal and State Laws? While I don't agree with Perry's ultrasound deal, this is a STATE issue. It ONLY affects Texas. If other states approve a similar mandate then that is based on their STATE GOV'T. There's a HUGE difference. I can easily move out of Texas. It's a little harder to up and move out of the country. Some people will never respect states rights to make determinations for themselves. Obviously....as cereb and ugonow CLEARLY don't know the difference.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jun 17, 2011 11:54:29 GMT -5
Such as taking away states rights to regulate insurance companies so insurance could be sold across borders, or replacing states right to set their own liability caps in malpractice cases,and replacing them with fed tort reform? nope don't understand it at all.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 11:54:35 GMT -5
Yea...real simple..... Now you have to open a new government agency to run through all these....... real simple....... Or....you can just add this responsibility to the current departments handling the welfare in the first place. If you had any understanding of how the current department structure is set up to handle the needs of welfare applicants and recipients, you would know this suggestion won't work.
|
|
pappyjohn99
Familiar Member
The driveway needs a little work.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 1:01:13 GMT -5
Posts: 928
|
Post by pappyjohn99 on Jun 17, 2011 11:55:18 GMT -5
It's a blatant invasion of privacy.
It is an agreement that I had to make to get my money from my employer. And found to be legal by the judiciary. If I don't want to pee in a cup, I am free to refuse the job. The same principle applies. People are applying for tax money. If they want the money, they pee in the cup.
Explained so simply, a progressive can understand.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 11:56:14 GMT -5
Some people will never respect states rights to make determinations for themselves. Obviously....as cereb and ugonow CLEARLY don't know the difference. Uh... clearly I do know the difference. Would you like to discuss the matter or continue with the personal attacks? I'm game for either one...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 11, 2024 22:23:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 11:57:18 GMT -5
A government mandate is a government mandate whether done on a federal or a local level. So, I take that as a NO. You don't understand the difference between STATE and FEDERAL mandates. Here's a tip....anything not expressly written in the Constitution is left to the STATES to decide. I know that seems like a ridiculous notion and that we have all kinds of federal crap that is blatantly Un-Constitutional, but original intent was to let individual STATES decide their OWN laws that don't supersede any part of the Constitution.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 11:57:47 GMT -5
It's a blatant invasion of privacy.It is an agreement that I had to make to get my money from my employer. And found to be legal by the judiciary. If I don't want to pee in a cup, I am free to refuse the job. The same principle applies. People are applying for tax money. If they want the money, they pee in the cup. Explained so simply, a progressive can understand. You had to have an untrasound of your unborn baby before you could terminate the pregnancy and it was mandated by your employer? Interesting. That's what I was talking about.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 11, 2024 22:23:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 11:58:47 GMT -5
Or....you can just add this responsibility to the current departments handling the welfare in the first place. If you had any understanding of how the current department structure is set up to handle the needs of welfare applicants and recipients, you would know this suggestion won't work. Really? They can't be re-trained? Interesting. I've had to add more and more work to my plate and yet I found that as long as I'm shown what to do, that I, IN FACT...can do it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 11, 2024 22:23:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 12:00:37 GMT -5
Obviously....as cereb and ugonow CLEARLY don't know the difference. Uh... clearly I do know the difference. Would you like to discuss the matter or continue with the personal attacks? I'm game for either one... You're fairly weak minded if you think that was a personal attack? Get your feelings hurt easily do you?
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 12:02:10 GMT -5
A government mandate is a government mandate whether done on a federal or a local level. So, I take that as a NO. You don't understand the difference between STATE and FEDERAL mandates. Here's a tip....anything not expressly written in the Constitution is left to the STATES to decide. I know that seems like a ridiculous notion and that we have all kinds of federal crap that is blatantly Un-Constitutional, but original intent was to let individual STATES decide their OWN laws that don't supersede any part of the Constitution. I get that. So what the heck does that have to do with the fact that we are discussing a FLORIDA STATE MANDATE which we are all aware that it is a FLORIDA STATE MANDATE and that the ultrasound issue is a TEXAS STATE MANDATE and not a FEDERAL STATE MANDATE? Oh yeah..nothing. We are all smart enough to know the difference. Move on to the ACTUAL TOPIC PLEASE.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jun 17, 2011 12:02:31 GMT -5
So republicans are being unconstitutional when they say they want to replace states right to regulate insurance with federal so it can be sold across borders, and their tort reform is unconstitutional because it takes away states current right to set their own caps?
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 12:04:16 GMT -5
If you had any understanding of how the current department structure is set up to handle the needs of welfare applicants and recipients, you would know this suggestion won't work. Really? They can't be re-trained? Interesting. I've had to add more and more work to my plate and yet I found that as long as I'm shown what to do, that I, IN FACT...can do it. Haven't spoken with any state workers in the entitlement business lately have you? It's not pretty
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jun 17, 2011 12:05:29 GMT -5
Lol, can you imagine the flood of paper work if they have to verify if the person has a script? IMO, this opens up a whole can of worms and a whole new department.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 11, 2024 22:23:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 12:06:56 GMT -5
So, I take that as a NO. You don't understand the difference between STATE and FEDERAL mandates. Here's a tip....anything not expressly written in the Constitution is left to the STATES to decide. I know that seems like a ridiculous notion and that we have all kinds of federal crap that is blatantly Un-Constitutional, but original intent was to let individual STATES decide their OWN laws that don't supersede any part of the Constitution. I get that. So what the heck does that have to do with the fact that we are discussing a FLORIDA STATE MANDATE which we are all aware that it is a FLORIDA STATE MANDATE and that the ultrasound issue is a TEXAS STATE MANDATE and not a FEDERAL STATE MANDATE? Oh yeah..nothing. We are all smart enough to know the difference. Move on to the ACTUAL TOPIC PLEASE. Is this not EXACTLY what this thread is about? Does anything in the Constitution forbid Florida from drug testing those on welfare? Does anything in the Constitution forbid Texas from requiring an ultrasound before getting an abortion? That's why the FEDERAL government shouldn't have any say in these matters. They DON'T have the legal authority no matter how much they think they do.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 12:07:48 GMT -5
Uh... clearly I do know the difference. Would you like to discuss the matter or continue with the personal attacks? I'm game for either one... You're fairly weak minded if you think that was a personal attack? Get your feelings hurt easily do you? I see. Since all you are able to come up with is some lame ass attempt at what you would call an insult instead of discussing the matter at hand, it would appear sir that the weak minded individual would be you. Glad I could help you out with that. Any further reality testing on your "superior intellect" required for today?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jun 17, 2011 12:08:58 GMT -5
Who the hell said it was unconstitutional.....I think it is a stupid idea and the one who gains the most from it will be the clinics like Scotts that do the testing.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 12:10:30 GMT -5
"Is this not EXACTLY what this thread is about?"
Not exactly. Most people have weighed in on the ethical issue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 11, 2024 22:23:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 12:12:31 GMT -5
So republicans are being unconstitutional when they say they want to replace states right to regulate insurance with federal so it can be sold across borders, and their tort reform is unconstitutional because it takes away states current right to set their own caps? This isn't just a Republican problem. Biased much? The Commerce Clause is in the Constitution. Now, is the Commerce Clause open to abuse of power and abuse of interpretation? Sure. States would still be able to regulate insurance sold in their state. However, the citizens of that state could get insurance from whatever state made the most sense to that individual person.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jun 17, 2011 12:12:54 GMT -5
This message has been deleted.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 17, 2011 12:15:44 GMT -5
I thought there might be a privacy issue with searching someones blood without probable cause
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 11, 2024 22:23:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 12:17:13 GMT -5
Who the hell said it was unconstitutional.....I think it is a stupid idea and the one who gains the most from it will be the clinics like Scotts that do the testing. Just because Scott has a clinic that potentially COULD benefit, doesn't mean it's a bad law. Someone would obviously benefit regardless of any potential association. I benefit from many companies doing things that would be considered "mean"...like letting go of workers to increase stock share. Doesn't mean I'm for unemployment.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 11, 2024 22:23:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 12:18:21 GMT -5
I thought there might be a privacy issue with searching someones blood without probable cause Why? Your own genetics are barely yours. Look it up.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 11, 2024 22:23:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 12:19:38 GMT -5
You're fairly weak minded if you think that was a personal attack? Get your feelings hurt easily do you? I see. Since all you are able to come up with is some lame ass attempt at what you would call an insult instead of discussing the matter at hand, it would appear sir that the weak minded individual would be you. Glad I could help you out with that. Any further reality testing on your "superior intellect" required for today? I'm not trying to insult you or hurt your feelings. However, the fact that you take it as such says far more about you than it does me.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jun 17, 2011 12:19:49 GMT -5
And because I think it is a waste and stupid idea that will add another layer of government does not mean I want every to be on welfare,as you implied in an earlier post. Adois.
|
|