Switch Theme:

Oklahoma House Votes to Nullify Obamacare, 72-20  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending






Glendale, AZ

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/03/oklahoma-house-votes-to-nullify-obamacare-72-20/

OKLAHOMA CITY (March 13, 2013) – Nullification of Obamacare in Oklahoma took a step closer to reality Wednesday when the Oklahoma House overwhelmingly approved a bill that would nullify the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

HB1021 declares Obamacare unconstitutional and calls on the Oklahoma legislature to take action to prevent implementation of the federal health care plan in the Sooner State.

It shall be the duty of the Legislature of this state to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” and the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010” within the limits of this state.

The bill passed 72-20 and will now move on to the State Senate.

Oklahoma Liberty executive director Mark Kreslins said bill sponsor Rep. Mike Ritze, along with States’ Rights Committee chairman Rep. Lewis Moore, Rep. Dan Fisher and Rep. John Enns all delivered passionate floor speeches prior to the vote, calling on their fellow representatives to step up, and rein in an out of control and tyrannical federal government.

Kreslins also credited strong grass roots support for pushing the bill through.


“This is a great day for nullification and for the liberty movement with the overwhelming victory of HB 1021,” he said. “We want to extend a huge ‘thank you’ to everybody who came out Tuesday to the liberty rally and then talked to your representatives on behalf of the bill. This victory would not have possible without you.”

Ritze said states have to step up and stop the federal government from completely running over the most basic rights of the people and their states.

“Thomas Jefferson made it perfectly clear in the Kentucky Resolution of 1799 when he wrote; ‘That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence.’”

Senator Nathan Dahm will serve as the bill’s primary sponsor in the Senate. It has not been assigned a committee at this time.

Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!



On the other hand, they may be onto something... because these are the current *new* regulations:


There's more coming...

Caption: Go ahead, pick it up. Hernia operations are now “free.”


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in ca
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord





Yeah, it's not like the SC has already declared it to be constitutional or anything...
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 azazel the cat wrote:
Yeah, it's not like the SC has already declared it to be constitutional or anything...

Only on the part that the Mandate (aka, the tax) is Constitutional...

There's still cases on the docket to review Constitutionality on equal protection and religious conscience.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills






Manchester, NH

But the Oklahoma legislature, thankfully, will save the Supreme Court the time.

Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.

Maelstrom's Edge! 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

The first civil war was started to keep some people slaves in the name of liberty. Even today, we have people who wouldn't mind a second civil war to keep some people from accessing medical services -- also in the name of liberty.

   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Manchu wrote:
The first civil war was started to keep some people slaves in the name of liberty. Even today, we have people who wouldn't mind a second civil war to keep some people from accessing medical services -- also in the name of liberty.

Out of curiosity, do you think gross misrepresentations of the other side put you on the same level or even lower than the "death panel" people?
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

I'm unaware of undertaking a gross misrepresentation. Stay curious.

   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Manchu wrote:
I'm unaware of undertaking a gross misrepresentation. Stay curious.

In that case, we must conclude you truly believe that those who oppose Obamacare do so out of a desire to deny medical treatment to others. Based on prior conversations, I would have given you a lot more credit than that, but I will reevaluate.
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

It will be a mutual reevaluation, as it seems you believe this kind of opposition to the ACA is about something other than reinforcing a system that profits on denying medical treatment.

   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Manchu wrote:
It will be a mutual reevaluation, as it seems you believe this kind of opposition to the ACA is about something other than reinforcing a system that profits on denying medical treatment.

I'm sorry, are you actually familiar with the ACA? Because it's a massive gift to "a system that profits on denying medical treatment."
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Yeah, I've heard that spin.

   
Made in us
Hallowed Canoness





The Void

How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.

I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long


SoB, IG, SM, SW, Nec, Cus, Tau, FoW Germans, Team Yankee Marines, Battletech Clan Wolf, Mercs
DR:90-SG+M+B+I+Pw40k12+ID+++A+++/are/WD-R+++T(S)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.

Nope. According to what we've just learned, you just want to let people die in the streets. Also, you'd probably like to be a slaveholder.
   
Made in ca
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord





KalashnikovMarine wrote:How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.

I agree. But it does prevent people from being denied insurance, which I believe was deemed by the ACA's creators as being more important than the horrendously expensive bureacratic mess that it creates.

Ultimately, I think the ACA question is really: "is medical care a human right, and thus unconcerned with the monetary cost?"
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

@Seaward: If you read the OP, just out of curiosity perhaps, you will only find an argument about states rights.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/14 05:04:39


   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Manchu wrote:
@Seaward: If you read the OP, just out of curiosity perhaps, you will only find an argument about states rights.

Because that's an argument that hasn't been tested in the Supreme Court yet with regards to the ACA.
   
Made in us
Hallowed Canoness





The Void

 azazel the cat wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.

I agree. But it does prevent people from being denied insurance, which I believe was deemed by the ACA's creators as being more important than the horrendously expensive bureacratic mess that it creates.

Ultimately, I think the ACA question is really: "is medical care a human right, and thus unconcerned with the monetary cost?"


I'm fething concerned with the monetary costs! Honestly the ACA is a complete clusterfeth, the creators of the bill had nothing so high minded as preventing people from being denied insurance in their heads when they passed it, other wise they would have passed a bill that did just that, instead of the ACA, which well we're still trying to figure out what all it does.... besides generate an ungodly amount of paperwork and cost a fortune.

I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long


SoB, IG, SM, SW, Nec, Cus, Tau, FoW Germans, Team Yankee Marines, Battletech Clan Wolf, Mercs
DR:90-SG+M+B+I+Pw40k12+ID+++A+++/are/WD-R+++T(S)DM+ 
   
Made in ca
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord





Seaward wrote:
 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.

Nope. According to what we've just learned, you just want to let people die in the streets. Also, you'd probably like to be a slaveholder.

Premise 1: medical care is a human right.
Premise 2: medical care is attempting to be denied based upon "states' rights".
Premise 3: not being a slave is a human right.
Premise 4: not being a slave was denied based upon "states' rights".
Conclusion: either you do just want to let people die in the streets (reject Premise 1), or else you'd probably like to be a slaveholder.

I'm not entirely serious, but this isn't completely devoid of reason, either.
   
Made in us
Hallowed Canoness





The Void

 Seaward wrote:
 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.

Nope. According to what we've just learned, you just want to let people die in the streets. Also, you'd probably like to be a slaveholder.


It's a hobby, and as an Irish American, I'm far more likely to be whipped then I am to crack one.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 azazel the cat wrote:
Seaward wrote:
 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.

Nope. According to what we've just learned, you just want to let people die in the streets. Also, you'd probably like to be a slaveholder.

Premise 1: medical care is a human right.
Premise 2: medical care is attempting to be denied based upon "states' rights".
Premise 3: not being a slave is a human right.
Premise 4: not being a slave was denied based upon "states' rights".
Conclusion: either you do just want to let people die in the streets (reject Premise 1), or else you'd probably like to be a slaveholder.

I'm not entirely serious, but this isn't completely devoid of reason, either.


See Premise 2 is an assumption though, you assume that the people who reject the ACA for whatever reason want to deny people medical care. It's a massive leap in logic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/14 05:11:54


I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long


SoB, IG, SM, SW, Nec, Cus, Tau, FoW Germans, Team Yankee Marines, Battletech Clan Wolf, Mercs
DR:90-SG+M+B+I+Pw40k12+ID+++A+++/are/WD-R+++T(S)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 azazel the cat wrote:
Seaward wrote:
 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
How about opposing the ACA on the grounds that it only breaks things further instead of actually fixing things, and is "a gaping financial wound"? Full capitalism, or a true single payer system, the ACA only makes things an even more expensive, uglier mess.

Nope. According to what we've just learned, you just want to let people die in the streets. Also, you'd probably like to be a slaveholder.

Premise 1: medical care is a human right.
Premise 2: medical care is attempting to be denied based upon "states' rights".
Premise 3: not being a slave is a human right.
Premise 4: not being a slave was denied based upon "states' rights".
Conclusion: either you do just want to let people die in the streets (reject Premise 1), or else you'd probably like to be a slaveholder.

I'm not entirely serious, but this isn't completely devoid of reason, either.

It is, as it involves a couple of incorrect assumptions. I'm iffy on Premise 1, but Premise 2 is the real problem. Written correctly, it would read, "Forced purchase of a service from a private commercial entity is being denied based upon states' rights."
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Seaward wrote:
I'm sorry, are you actually familiar with the ACA? Because it's a massive gift to "a system that profits on denying medical treatment."


Yeah, see the problem there is that your description is total fantasy, that can only be claimed out of complete ignorance of reality, or complete indifference to it. And given how many times this stuff has been explained to you before, it's pretty clear you're just choosing to post whatever you like, regardless of what's actually true.

In ACA there exists for the first time a national requirement for insurers to pay out at least 80% of their collections in actual medical coverage. Given there is now a hard cap on how much any insurer can profit from the system, describing the bill as a gift to those companies is complete lunacy.

And of course, there is now no allowance for healthcare providers to deny protection based on a pre-existing condition. This is both the law that made it necessary to require people to get insurance, and a massive obligation on private insureres (who previously made much of their profit by figuring out who to exclude from coverage, including people who had up until that point been paying in to their system). Given that if you asked insurers to between a mandate for people to take insurance (or face a small fine), or the insurers being able to decide who it did and didn't insure, every single one of them is obviously going to choose the latter. Making your point, once again, complete loonie pants nonsense.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/14 05:24:08


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in ca
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord





KalashnikovMarine wrote:
See Premise 2 is an assumption though, you assume that the people who reject the ACA for whatever reason want to deny people medical care. It's a massive leap in logic.

What? No it's not. This entire thread is based around Premise 2.
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 azazel the cat wrote:
What? No it's not. This entire thread is based around Premise 2.

That doesn't make it correct.

   
Made in ca
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord





Seaward wrote:
 azazel the cat wrote:
What? No it's not. This entire thread is based around Premise 2.

That doesn't make it correct.

Yeah, it kinda does.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/14 05:31:47


 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 azazel the cat wrote:
Seaward wrote:
 azazel the cat wrote:
What? No it's not. This entire thread is based around Premise 2.

That doesn't make it correct.

Yeah, it kinda does.



Not at all. You're still conflating "opposition to the ACA" with "opposition to medical care for some people."
   
Made in ca
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord





Seaward wrote:
 azazel the cat wrote:
Seaward wrote:
 azazel the cat wrote:
What? No it's not. This entire thread is based around Premise 2.

That doesn't make it correct.

Yeah, it kinda does.



Not at all. You're still conflating "opposition to the ACA" with "opposition to medical care for some people."

You mean those 30 million people who don't have access to medical care without the ACA? Yes, I suppose I correctly am.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Seaward wrote:
Not at all. You're still conflating "opposition to the ACA" with "opposition to medical care for some people."


The idea that the nutbars protesting against ACA would totally be in favour of some other unstated and unknown means of providing healthcare to the uninsured 30 million is the blackest of comedy. It's the kind of claim you have to read and just laugh, because the alternative is to spend hours trying to get a liar admit he is lying.

I mean, fething seriously...

How many efforts were made by movement conservatism to extend healthcare coverage to the uninsured before ACA - none.
How many alternatives to ACA that would extend healthcare coverage to the uninsured have been proposed since ACA was announced - none.
How many future efforts will there be to extend healthcare to coverage to the uninsured - yeah, fething totally, we do really want that, it's just we don't want it this way because freedom, state's rights and here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/14 05:44:59


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in ca
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord





sebster wrote:
How many future efforts will there be to extend healthcare to coverage to the uninsured - yeah, fething totally, we do really want that, it's just we don't want it this way because freedom, state's rights and here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson.

I'm just gonna leave this here...


   
Made in us
Hallowed Canoness





The Void

<--- opposes the ACA
<--- is all for those 30 million being insured.

Quit projecting.

I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long


SoB, IG, SM, SW, Nec, Cus, Tau, FoW Germans, Team Yankee Marines, Battletech Clan Wolf, Mercs
DR:90-SG+M+B+I+Pw40k12+ID+++A+++/are/WD-R+++T(S)DM+ 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: