If universal health care is so great...

[Greenbeard]

I do not deny that insurance is a commodity and could be regulated under interstate commerce, if it WAS being sold interstate. But since it is legally blocked from doing so, that eliminates all legal right of the federal government to do so abdicating it, correctly to the hands of the state to monitor and regulate.

Again, you've got the causality wrong: compartmentalization is a product of state regulation, not the other way around.

That said, the standard for using the Commerce Clause is that the activity in question "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." And of course health-related issues do. Insurers operate on a multi-state basis, many insurers will pay (reduced) out-of-state out-of-network rates for clients getting care in a different state, the necessary movement of medical goods and services across state lines has been used to uphold anti-trust laws on providers, the South-Eastern Underwriters precedent has already been set, the current move toward interstate health information exchange and the construction of a Nationwide Health Information Network extends the reach of health plans across state lines, and so on.

You're going to use a medicinal marijuana case in which the DEA destroyed 6 pot plants after the defendants had been caught essentially supplying 'medical marijuana'? In this mess you're going to use a single line out of a Scalia concurrence supporting the right of the DEA and CSA to do what they are supposed to do? Oh come ON!

That "medicinal marijuana case" was a Commerce Clause case, meaning it's relevant to this discussion.

Once we allow interstate selling of insurance, then I believe the government has a case to be involved in regulating said insurance commerce.

The new health insurance exchanges are required to contain multiple multi-state plans (in fact, exchanges themselves may span multiple states). That fact, in and of itself, should be enough (by your own admission) to give the federal government authority to regulate the rules by which the exchanges operate.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Come on, be real. You don't honestly think any of the people in Washington give a rat's ass about anything the Constitution says do you? You can't be serious...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Count D obviously does not care and does not understand the Constitution.

 

[editec]

We can afford to BRIBE AFghanistani warlords so we can build roads in AFghanistan.

We can piss away $1.1 trillion in misadventures in Asia

But we cannot afford HC for Americans.

What's wrong with that picture?

 

[Old Rocks]

Why, if we had UHC, the poor insurance CEOs could not make ten of millions annually denying the citizens of this nation the health care they had paid insurance for.

 

[Bern80]

We can afford to BRIBE AFghanistani warlords so we can build roads in AFghanistan.

We can piss away $1.1 trillion in misadventures in Asia

But we cannot afford HC for Americans.

What's wrong with that picture?

It isn't about whether we can pay for it. Because we can afford to pay people's rent or mortgage should we do that too? One could argue shelter is a more essential need than health care. A little perspective please people.

 

[Oddball]

We can afford to BRIBE AFghanistani warlords so we can build roads in AFghanistan.

We can piss away $1.1 trillion in misadventures in Asia

But we cannot afford HC for Americans.

What's wrong with that picture?

What's wrong is that picture is you've thrown out the old standardized false dichotomy.

Neither are affordable nor are they what the feds should be involved in.

 

[Oddball]

I do not deny that insurance is a commodity and could be regulated under interstate commerce, if it WAS being sold interstate. But since it is legally blocked from doing so, that eliminates all legal right of the federal government to do so abdicating it, correctly to the hands of the state to monitor and regulate.

Again, you've got the causality wrong: compartmentalization is a product of state regulation, not the other way around.

That said, the standard for using the Commerce Clause is that the activity in question "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." And of course health-related issues do. Insurers operate on a multi-state basis, many insurers will pay (reduced) out-of-state out-of-network rates for clients getting care in a different state, the necessary movement of medical goods and services across state lines has been used to uphold anti-trust laws on providers, the South-Eastern Underwriters precedent has already been set, the current move toward interstate health information exchange and the construction of a Nationwide Health Information Network extends the reach of health plans across state lines, and so on.

Yet you've pointed out that they've abdicated that responsibility, to the point that they've created the very situation which anti-trust laws were ostensibly meant to combat. In turn, you're rationalizing massive federal intervention as a "solution" to the problem that they created.

I was right...You're a willing accomplice.

 

[Big Fitz]

Again, you've got the causality wrong: compartmentalization is a product of state regulation, not the other way around.

Please show why compartmentalization is a bad thing. The USA was founded on the concepts of checks and balances and compartmentalization. Remember, the states are still sovereign entities and could in theory secede from the union if they wanted to. Lincoln stopped it once, making it harder yes, but not impossible again.

That said, the standard for using the Commerce Clause is that the activity in question "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce."

Which is the core of the MISTRANSLATION of the whole commerce clause. This started when SCOTUS 'found' that a farmer growing crops for his own personal use affected trade between the states because he no longer consumed what was produced elsewhere. This effectively made self-sufficiency defacto illegal and consumerism the law of the land. This is a wrong interpretation designed for more power to be wrested from the individual and the states to the national government where it does not belong.

And of course health-related issues do. Insurers operate on a multi-state basis, many insurers will pay (reduced) out-of-state out-of-network rates for clients getting care in a different state, the necessary movement of medical goods and services across state lines has been used to uphold anti-trust laws on providers, the South-Eastern Underwriters precedent has already been set, the current move toward interstate health information exchange and the construction of a Nationwide Health Information Network extends the reach of health plans across state lines, and so on.

As we have seen, precedent is not set in stone. Secondly, this is based on a wrong interpretation of original intent. Third, you're reaching at straws. The government does not have the right to force compulsory participation in a market. Don't even try the car insurance riff. That fraud has been burst long since.

That "medicinal marijuana case" was a Commerce Clause case, meaning it's relevant to this discussion.

No. It isn't. It is an attempt at equivalency that does not exist.

The new health insurance exchanges are required to contain multiple multi-state plans (in fact, exchanges themselves may span multiple states).

We won't know how it really works till after they finish modifying the laws behind our backs. This legislation should never have been passed as it never fully existed. They will exist in an environment of taxpayer subsidized unfair competition that probably is a violation of anti-trust ordinances. But thats just me looking at what they claim it will do, not what it REALLY will do.

That fact, in and of itself, should be enough (by your own admission) to give the federal government authority to regulate the rules by which the exchanges operate.

Only companies that participate in the exchange, yes, as long as the product is sold across state lines. It still is not right, and based on both bad precedent that requires removal and what is technically illegal use of power by the federal government. But when has that ever stopped do-gooder social busybodies from doing what they ought not?

You're trying to play exceptions and mistranslations as if they are mainstream understandings and methodology. This may or may not work, but none the less, it is never right.

 

[Big Fitz]

Come on, be real. You don't honestly think any of the people in Washington give a rat's ass about anything the Constitution says do you? You can't be serious...

No this current crop.. well maybe 5% or so. Just wait till they go lame duck. We're going to see so much shit try to get shoved through. Thank God Byrd died. That possibly saved this nation from true disaster.

 

[Big Fitz]

We can afford to BRIBE AFghanistani warlords so we can build roads in AFghanistan.

As seems to be the theme here, this nation and our federal government are doing thousands of things that we can't afford to do and hoping to push the cost off till after they're safe and retired. They're reverting roads in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to gravel because they can't afford to keep them properly paved and it's cheaper. We can't afford to do this shit in Afgahnistan either.

But we cannot afford HC for Americans.

We cannot afford the following:

Medicare
Medicaid
Welfare
Social Security
School Lunch
Public Schools
Public Sector Union Pensions
Amtrak
The NEA
Public TV and Radio....
The 'war on drugs'
We also can't afford to keep our bases open in Germany, Japan, S. Korea, England and many other places. What's our exit strategy from there?

The nation does a lot of things right now it can't afford. It needs to pare back to what it is constitutionally mandated to do, dump the rest on the states and let them cut programs they don't want and start saving money and force the indigent deadbeats to go to work and earn a living instead of coddling them with bullshit gubmint checks. Let them take work from illegals by doing the jobs "no American will do". Trust me. The gubmint money dries up, they'll work their asses off to stay alive.

 

[Big Fitz]

Medicare and Medicaid deny more cases than private insurance. Look it up. Was a very interesting admission by the government about 4 months ago.

 

[editec]

We can afford to BRIBE AFghanistani warlords so we can build roads in AFghanistan.

We can piss away $1.1 trillion in misadventures in Asia

But we cannot afford HC for Americans.

What's wrong with that picture?

What's wrong is that picture is you've thrown out the old standardized false dichotomy.

Neither are affordable nor are they what the feds should be involved in.

Neither are affordable?

We're on the same page, there, Dude.

But of the two, which best serves the American people?

Bribing Afghan warlords so we can build their roads for them, or helping Americans in need of HC?

You do realize, don't you, that I have been bitching about the stupid way we've been doing HC, and the foolish way Obama has restructured HC since day, one, right?

There's no dichotomy because these tow events are BOTH perfect examples of how incompetent (or corrupt, you decide) BOTH parties are and have been for at least the last 30 years.

 

[Yukon.]

Liberty,

You really are an idiot. But I will continue to pray for you at Mass.

The prayers of a practicing Catholic... who needs much more practice if he's pro abortion. Huh... bet that carries a LOT of weight with the Saints. Good luck with all that.

Big Fitz,

My son I have never stated in word or in writing that I am pro-abortion. What i am is PRO-CHOICE, it is a womans decision not mine. I would not think of telling a woman she can't have an abortion anymore than would I tell people they can't divorce - by the way both acts are mortal sins in the Catholic Church. PRO_CHOICE my son that is my position on abortion. Those involved will be judged by GOD for only He can judge .

 

[Oddball]

We can afford to BRIBE AFghanistani warlords so we can build roads in AFghanistan.

We can piss away $1.1 trillion in misadventures in Asia

But we cannot afford HC for Americans.

What's wrong with that picture?

What's wrong is that picture is you've thrown out the old standardized false dichotomy.

Neither are affordable nor are they what the feds should be involved in.

Neither are affordable?

We're on the same page, there, Dude.

But of the two, which best serves the American people?

Bribing Afghan warlords so we can build their roads for them, or helping Americans in need of HC?

You do realize, don't you, that I have been bitching about the stupid way we've been doing HC, and the foolish way Obama has restructured HC since day, one, right?

There's no dichotomy because these tow events are BOTH perfect examples of how incompetent (or corrupt, you decide) BOTH parties are and have been for at least the last 30 years.

I won't buy into the dichotomy for exactly that reason; they're both corrupt and operating FAR outside their constitutional box.

And forcing Americans to buy anything, under threatened sanction of law, does nothing to serve anyone...In fact it makes them the servants and the gubmint their master.

 

[Big Fitz]

Liberty,

You really are an idiot. But I will continue to pray for you at Mass.

The prayers of a practicing Catholic... who needs much more practice if he's pro abortion. Huh... bet that carries a LOT of weight with the Saints. Good luck with all that.

Big Fitz,

My son I have never stated in word or in writing that I am pro-abortion. What i am is PRO-CHOICE, it is a womans decision not mine. I would not think of telling a woman she can't have an abortion anymore than would I tell people they can't divorce - by the way both acts are mortal sins in the Catholic Church. PRO_CHOICE my son that is my position on abortion. Those involved will be judged by GOD for only He can judge .

My Son? Trying to imply authority by using a "priestly" prhase? FAIL.

If you ARE a priest or lay-leader in the church, you are doubly condemned according to scripture. Just a friendly reminder from a non-catholic who's studied to a catholic who may be ignorant.

As for divorce and abortion being mortal sins, you're right. Just like rape, murder and theft. But if you are going to call yourself a catholic then pick and choose what you like out of it, should not God pick and choose out of your salvation what He likes? It seems to me that if you are going to devote yourself to a religion, you should embrace all of it, instead of playing theological buffet... otherwise, why bother claiming to be one? You aren't really, you're only an admirer or groupie that clings on to the sides in hopes of blessings spilling over onto you. This is particularly poignant if you cling to the mantle of authority like you have here.

Bribing Afghan warlords so we can build their roads for them, or helping Americans in need of HC?

Neither. Invest in something that will yield dividends to the national economy like work training programs or closing the boarders with troops and minefields. We don't need to spend, we need to save and PAY DOWN DEBT. We need Dave Ramsey in charge of the Treasury and give him veto rights over the budget.

 

[MaggieMae]

Your clever and smug remarks aside, if the Constitution is to be abided solely on its word, then why was it also a requirement therein that a United States Supreme Court would be tasked to rule on all of its stated provisions as required? Do you honestly think the framers were stupid enough to believe that time would stand still and that events would take place necessitating broader definitions?

Which part of Article 3 is that?

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

 

[Liberty]

Wow, it is so simple.

Let's assume the welfare clause and "regulate" bullshit the federal politicians like to use to backup their tyrannical crap was true....

then what the hell would be the point of the 10th amendment if the congress was intended to do ANYTHING IT WANTED???

The people who support federal tyranny and are arguing for it in this thread, your argument does not work simply because the 10th amendment exists. It is that fucking simple.

 

[MaggieMae]

Egads - over two centuries ago some bright people created a document that the wingnuts now use whenever they disagree with anything that moves the nation forward. How boring.

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

There is lots not in the constitution that is the law of the land today.

It's inyourface obvious. GREAT LINK!!

 

[MaggieMae]

Nice try at deflection.

Care to address the topic of where socializing medical services can be found as a federal matter, rather than pointing to a smoke-blowing list of irrelevant non sequiturs, red herrings and instances of "well we got away with it, so it must be constitutional"?

Were you one of those annoying children who tag along behind the mother asking WHY? WHY? WHY? when she had already exhausted every plausible answer?