What should be against the law

[MutuelClerk]

Lead in water.

[therussmeister]

Originally Posted by Mandrake

Healthy people who take elevators up 1 floor instead of walking a flight of stairs.

Or healthy people who stand on the escalator. Problem is, you can't always tell who's healthy just by looking at them.

[Marshall Bennett]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

Or healthy people who stand on the escalator. Problem is, you can't always tell who's healthy just by looking at them.

Bump em, give em a nudge.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Reporter: How can you watch the killing in Bosnia and not want to use America's might to try to end that kind of suffering?

GEORGE HW BUSH: I vowed something, because I learned something from Vietnam: I am not going to commit US forces until I know what the mission is, until the military tell me that it can be completed, until I know how they can come out. We are helping. American airplanes are helping today on humanitarian relief for Sarajevo. But when you go to put somebody else's son or daughter into war, I think you've got to be a little bit careful, and you have to be sure that there's a military plan that can do this. You have ancient ethnic rivalries that have cropped up as Yugoslavia dissolves. It isn't going to be solved by sending in the 82d Airborne, and I'm not going to do that."

Sounds like the first President Bush thought in the terms suggested by the poster. I know it isn't an exact parallel, so no need for your famous parsing of sentences. I'd say your ridiculous meter is off lately. As always, please have the last word on this matter.

He was right that it was ridiculous. If the person said that the President must consider war as if his own son or daughter was fighting, then it wouldn't have been ridiculous. But as it was written, it was. So now we're going to limit our Presidents to those who have military age sons (usually) who are in active duty military? And when that President has to engage in war, he has to make sure this particular military member - his son - is on the front lines?

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

Or healthy people who stand on the escalator.

I assume you're joking.

If you always walk up the escalator, then I'm guessing your blood-pressure is through the roof. Chill a little.

[TJDave]

Disguising pets as guide dogs to sneak them into restaurants.

[Tom]

Tax on beer.

[fast4522]

Presidents who lie on television, getting caught should strip them of everything upon leaving office.

[MutuelClerk]

Spending ten minutes trying to find a two dollar golf ball.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by mostpost

A health screening mandated by a private company is not a health screening mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Obviously I do not have your email-hell, you don't even have it-but my guess is that the reference to ACA was that ACA requires private insurers to pay for such services completely.

I found out more about this, and got the FAQ doc on it. If the screening is not completed by June 30th, my premium goes up $50/month. In other words, it's $600 per year to "prove" you've had the screening if I chose not to participate - basically, mandatory. It's not directly from the ACA, but from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas. These biometric health screenings are described as a "benefit", and now a mandatory benefit. Since I've had health insurance from BCBS most of the last 30 years since I left the military and have never been required to complete an annual checkup, you can't convince me that this isn't an indirect effect of the ACA.

Here's what's included:

"What does the health screening include?
The biometric screening will include a finger prick blood test for CHOL, HDL, LDL, TRIG, GLU, A1C, AST, and ALT. It will also include height, weight, abdominal circumference and blood pressure."

And furthermore, you can't convince me that these data won't be used by death panels in the near future. I can just see the rejection letters now:

"We regret to inform you that our review of your condition and medical history that further treatment is declined. Your condition has been determined to be terminal, and not within the State's guidelines for responsbile health care spending. Your benefits for end-of-life preparations will be approved within the $250 limit. Thank you for your cooperation."

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Ah, but it is-five times.
The Fourteenth Amendment; Section 2: when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
In other words if a state does not allow some of its male citizens to vote, it will be punished by having its representation in Congress reduced.

15th Amendment; Section 1:Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

24th Amendment: Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Well, look at that. This pretty much makes your idea unconstitutional.

26th Amendment: Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Finally, there is this
9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Put another way, this means that rights do exist outside of the Constitution and those rights are as legitimates as any specifically delineated in the United States Constitution.

I guess I wasn't too clear on this - the original constitution did not protect the "right" to vote, and the five amendments quoted had to come into being to redefine the limitations. It's not in the same category as the rights of free speech (and thought).

There's no reason we can't have have a 28th amendment that repeals 24th and replaces it with one that provides for being a positive net taxpayer before being allowed to vote.

[zico20]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

I found out more about this, and got the FAQ doc on it. If the screening is not completed by June 30th, my premium goes up $50/month. In other words, it's $600 per year to "prove" you've had the screening if I chose not to participate - basically, mandatory. It's not directly from the ACA, but from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas. These biometric health screenings are described as a "benefit", and now a mandatory benefit. Since I've had health insurance from BCBS most of the last 30 years since I left the military and have never been required to complete an annual checkup, you can't convince me that this isn't an indirect effect of the ACA.

Here's what's included:

"What does the health screening include?
The biometric screening will include a finger prick blood test for CHOL, HDL, LDL, TRIG, GLU, A1C, AST, and ALT. It will also include height, weight, abdominal circumference and blood pressure."

And furthermore, you can't convince me that these data won't be used by death panels in the near future. I can just see the rejection letters now:

"We regret to inform you that our review of your condition and medical history that further treatment is declined. Your condition has been determined to be terminal, and not within the State's guidelines for responsbile health care spending. Your benefits for end-of-life preparations will be approved within the $250 limit. Thank you for your cooperation."

Of course there will be death panels. Democrats want to control you from the second you get out of the womb. It only stands to reason that they will determine how it is all going to end for someone.

[azeri98]

More than a 15% take out on any bet.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by MutuelClerk

Spending ten minutes trying to find a two dollar golf ball.

What about a $4+ ProV1?

[MutuelClerk]

Originally Posted by AndyC

What about a $4+ ProV1?

If you want to pay the green fees of everyone behind you. Search away.