If universal health care is so great...

[MaggieMae]

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?

It was understood, quite logically, that from time to time, matters between the states would arise where appeals on the meanings of law an its repercussions would need to be discussed, defined and clarified. Alexander Hamilton viewed the Supreme Court as the weakest branch. None of the founding fathers could have ever dreamed that one day we would have 9 black robed tyrannts who would usurp the power of the legislature and use the power of the judiciary to write law from whole cloth, discover heretofore unknown 'rights' in the constitution and twist or degenerate the meanings of minute clauses like the Interstate Commerce Clause and the General Welfare clause to include anything and everything at any time for the sake of a NATIONAL government, not a strictly defined and enumerated federal government tasked with ONLY law between the states, nations and other foreign powers.

The constitution was made flexible so it could, over the course of time, be amended to cover situations and advances in society that they could not have conceived at the time. They did not, however, believe that a day would come where society would be so morally bankrupt that the very meanings of the words would be twisted to achieve tyranny over free men. James Madison himself vetoed the first charitable spending bill and sent a veto with an admonishment back to congress reminding them that it is not the place of government to be caretakers for the people regardless of their need, but to defend their rights to be free and help themselves and others as they saw fit.

That bit, along with the clarifications in the Sixteen Amendment, allows a tax to be levied on income.

A tax is not a good or service to be purchased by compulsion. Therefore, no power to do this.



It seems we have a law student. Would this be the 1944 case with the activist packed FDR supreme court? Technically (in a sane world), since insurance now can't be sold across state lines, this would no longer be interstate commerce and therefore free of federal regulation. But since the activist court abused the Interstate Commerce Clause to push through New Deal radicalism, the ruling stood. I found this little tidbit on the courts between 1930 and 1953 kind of interesting...

During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson Courts (1930–1953), the court gained its own accommodation in 1935[24] and changed its interpretation of the Constitution in order to facilitate Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal (West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish,[25] Wickard v. Filburn),[26] giving a broader reading to the powers of the Federal Government.[27]

I knew that the supreme court was deliberately packed with progressive judicial activists by FDR because he wanted to push through previously unconstitutional legislation. Once the jurists were in place, all they had to do was modify the definitions of terminology and the rest was a fait accompli. Much like the left's beloved president asking... what the definition of 'is' is? So you may correctly point out that the national government gained the right to regulate insurance legally... it did so by deceit and trickery making it, at best, a good example of illegitimate law that will stand till a court arrives with the intestinal fortitude to purge such rulings as this.

Legal does not make right... only legal.

In McCulloch, the Court discusses at length the appropriate usage of the necessary and proper clause, concluding that powers necessary for carrying out powers explicitly granted to Congress (in our case, regulating insurance under the Commerce Clause as sanctioned in South-eastern Underwriters) may be exercised by Congress when not expressly forbidden in the Constitution. In this instance, we loop back up to the first point, since the power being exercised is one of taxation. The circle is complete.

Ah yes. The "good n' plenty" rears it's ugly head. So the necessary and proper clause takes precedent over the enumerated powers doctrine? Sounds to me, like Jim Crow, bad law was made in the Supreme Court out of whole cloth again. Yes, they are equivalent. Both enslaved people to artificial and unconstitutional constructs. Till you can show why the necessary and proper clause has supremacy over enumerated powers...

...your circle is shattered.

How interesting that you agree with the flexibility of the Constitution in the first part of your response(s), then try to blame any of the USSC decisions you might happen to dislike as exclusively the fault of liberal activists on the court. The only thing that I see coming full circle here is the simple fact that you are a politial hack who will refuse to take even a middle of the road rationale if it has a whisper of damaging your political stand.

 

[MaggieMae]

The reason insurance isn't sold across state lines is because Congress, when faced with this particular decision, purposefully deferred to the states by passing McCarran–Ferguson, which explicitly left it to state governments to regulate health insurance. The result was 50 different regulatory schemes, none permitting insurers licensed outside that scheme (i.e. in a different state) to participate. That's not to say a state couldn't allow out-of-state insurance to be sold within its borders; many such bills have been introduced in various state legislatures over the years (e.g. Colorado, Pennsylvania, Vermont) though they haven't passed.

That's the best example of the conservative right that yammers that states should have more power over the federal government, but when states HAVE certain rights over federal, when that presents a problem, they want that power reversed. It's hard to keep up sometimes. I do believe the conservatives want their own Constitution. Perhaps Texas is now working on that.

 

[MaggieMae]

The reason insurance isn't sold across state lines is because Congress, when faced with this particular decision, purposefully deferred to the states by passing McCarran–Ferguson, which explicitly left it to state governments to regulate health insurance. The result was 50 different regulatory schemes, none permitting insurers licensed outside that scheme (i.e. in a different state) to participate. That's not to say a state couldn't allow out-of-state insurance to be sold within its borders; many such bills have been introduced in various states over the years (e.g. Colorado, Pennsylvania, Vermont) though they haven't passed.

In other words, the absence of federal regulation is the reason insurance hasn't been sold across state lines.

The absence of federal regulation is abrogation of their responsibility, no matter what case or relatively obscure piece of legislation you dredge up.

Turning around and saying that the abandonment of that responsibility is somehow a good enough rationale, so that they need to force everyone to use the product of that dereliction of duty is bloody insane....And making excuses for such actions is borderline evil.

I think you string words together that make absolutely no sense just hoping someone will buy into your jibberish as being intellectually superior. What???

 

[MaggieMae]

If it's anything like my Universal Remote, it'll suck ass.
1/2 the buttons don't work...sleep timer is dyslexic, and I have to keep pressing the volume to turn it up/down

Well "universal health care" would suck too if each state wasn't programmed to the central contol. You do know you need to do that for your universal remote to communicate with all your peripheral equipment, I hope.

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

You've forgotten money to rebuild hospitals and clinics and pay for health care of Iraqis. (Don't get me started...)

 

[MaggieMae]

I've been waiting for one of the usual arguments that health care reform will signal the demise of private health care insurers and loss of jobs. On the contrary, it's one of those businesses that is and will be doing a lot of hiring because of the bill.

74% of Nation's Top Insurance Companies Are Hiring

Reform Spurs Hiring at Health Insurers - Finance Career Management, Finance Career News - fins.com

 

[Yukon.]

A 1.00 per gallon tax on gas, 2.00 per package of smokes, 50 cents per bottle of beer, and 3.00 on bottles of wine and liquor would pay for Universal Health Care in the USA.

 

[Oddball]

The reason insurance isn't sold across state lines is because Congress, when faced with this particular decision, purposefully deferred to the states by passing McCarran–Ferguson, which explicitly left it to state governments to regulate health insurance. The result was 50 different regulatory schemes, none permitting insurers licensed outside that scheme (i.e. in a different state) to participate. That's not to say a state couldn't allow out-of-state insurance to be sold within its borders; many such bills have been introduced in various states over the years (e.g. Colorado, Pennsylvania, Vermont) though they haven't passed.

In other words, the absence of federal regulation is the reason insurance hasn't been sold across state lines.

The absence of federal regulation is abrogation of their responsibility, no matter what case or relatively obscure piece of legislation you dredge up.

Turning around and saying that the abandonment of that responsibility is somehow a good enough rationale, so that they need to force everyone to use the product of that dereliction of duty is bloody insane....And making excuses for such actions is borderline evil.

I think you string words together that make absolutely no sense just hoping someone will buy into your jibberish as being intellectually superior. What???

Who said anything about intellectual superiority? That you cannot follow the conversation in this area is more indicative of lack on your part, than anything else.

The fact is that , according to Greenbeard, the feds passed laws which have caused them to be derelict in their duty to regulate (i.e. make regular) interstate commerce in the insurance market. To turn around and blame most or all of the current problems on insurance companies --which are operating under in-state quasi-monopolies which would otherwise have class action attorneys licking their chops-- for the problems that said dereliction of duty has indeed caused.

Then, useful idiots like you and willing accomplice apparatchiks like Greenbeard burst to your feet yelling "YAAAAAAAY!"

 

[MaggieMae]

A 1.00 per gallon tax on gas, 2.00 per package of smokes, 50 cents per bottle of beer, and 3.00 on bottles of wine and liquor would pay for Universal Health Care in the USA.

Sure, for a nation of individuals who balk at an additional $.05 tax on a litre of soda? Don't you know we're the kind of people who like to be fat and ugly and stay drunk so that we don't care? Then turn around and bitch that it suddenly costs thousands in health care expenses so we don't die from those excesses.

 

[MaggieMae]

The absence of federal regulation is abrogation of their responsibility, no matter what case or relatively obscure piece of legislation you dredge up.

Turning around and saying that the abandonment of that responsibility is somehow a good enough rationale, so that they need to force everyone to use the product of that dereliction of duty is bloody insane....And making excuses for such actions is borderline evil.

I think you string words together that make absolutely no sense just hoping someone will buy into your jibberish as being intellectually superior. What???

Who said anything about intellectual superiority? That you cannot follow the conversation in this area is more indicative of lack on your part, than anything else.

The fact is that , according to Greenbeard, the feds passed laws which have caused them to be derelict in their duty to regulate (i.e. make regular) interstate commerce in the insurance market. To turn around and blame most or all of the current problems on insurance companies --which are operating under in-state quasi-monopolies which would otherwise have class action attorneys licking their chops-- for the problems that said dereliction of duty has indeed caused.

Then, useful idiots like you and willing accomplice apparatchiks like Greenbeard burst to your feet yelling "YAAAAAAAY!"

What's incredibly stupid is that you consistently fail to recognize that you're simply a different breed of "apparatchik" yourself. Hypocrisy is always knee-deep with you.

 

[Big Fitz]

How interesting that you agree with the flexibility of the Constitution in the first part of your response(s), then try to blame any of the USSC decisions you might happen to dislike as exclusively the fault of liberal activists on the court. The only thing that I see coming full circle here is the simple fact that you are a politial hack who will refuse to take even a middle of the road rationale if it has a whisper of damaging your political stand.

:::holds up a mirror::: look in one lately?

 

[Big Fitz]

That's the best example of the conservative right that yammers that states should have more power over the federal government, but when states HAVE certain rights over federal, when that presents a problem, they want that power reversed. It's hard to keep up sometimes. I do believe the conservatives want their own Constitution. Perhaps Texas is now working on that.

That WAS the original intent. Lincoln fucked it up with the Civil War diminishing the right to secede. You even try the 'so you support slavery?' argument and I'm done dealing with you due to your terminal stupidity.

We want original intent restored, not this bullshit precedent layer salad we currently have with contradicting rulings going back 4 generations.

You've forgotten money to rebuild hospitals and clinics and pay for health care of Iraqis. (Don't get me started...)

Should have bombed the shit out of them, destroyed Hussein's government, waited for the Iraqis to get their first vote in the can and then get out. We're wasting lives and capital there now because we're fighting for no discernible victory goal, but we are killing thousands of would-be terrorists who otherwise would be attacking people around the world.

I've been waiting for one of the usual arguments that health care reform will signal the demise of private health care insurers and loss of jobs.

Obviously you haven't read the whole thread. I've pointed out that economic fact multiple times.

A 1.00 per gallon tax on gas, 2.00 per package of smokes, 50 cents per bottle of beer, and 3.00 on bottles of wine and liquor would pay for Universal Health Care in the USA.

Whether we could pay for it or not is immaterial "father" Youcon. There is no constitutional power for the feds to be doing this. Game set match. If we charged every American penny and gave it to me I'd have over 3.4 million dollars. So? There's no right for the government to do that either... but hell I'd be for it if I was that much of a hypocrite... which I'm not.

What's incredibly stupid is that you consistently fail to recognize that you're simply a different breed of "apparatchik" yourself. Hypocrisy is always knee-deep with you.

Do you even KNOW what you are talking about or are you throwing out words you heard in Dr. Zhivago or something? We can see you don't get the concept of a restrained and controlled government because you want a dictator... just as long as he's someone you like and does what you want. But you don't get that in a Constitutional government. Why don't you move to a nation that is more in line with your philosophical idealism. I hear Cuba's nice in December, and Venezuela's planning to improve... some year.

 

[Liberty]

A 1.00 per gallon tax on gas, 2.00 per package of smokes, 50 cents per bottle of beer, and 3.00 on bottles of wine and liquor would pay for Universal Health Care in the USA.

congratulations. You take the cake for being the person to post the most insanely retarded comment i have ever seen ever. well done.

 

[rikules]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.

absolutely

i completely agree

and far beyond universal health care the founding fathers (and the constitution) do NOT include the RIGHT to

think
get married
have children
work
earn money
sleep in a bed
wear clothes
drink beer
eat food

in fact

the founding fathers (via the constitution) gave ONLY the following rights;

the right to own guns
the right to not have to quarter soldiers
the right to free speech (as long as it doesn't offend any white male conservative christians)
the right to vote (as long as you are a WHITE MALE LAND OWNER)

and THAT is IT!

THOSE are THE ONLY RIGHTS YOU HAVE!

anyone demanding ANY OTHER RIGHT is bordering on TREASON!

thank you

 

[Liberty]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.

absolutely

i completely agree

and far beyond universal health care the founding fathers (and the constitution) do NOT include the RIGHT to

think
get married
have children
work
earn money
sleep in a bed
wear clothes
drink beer
eat food

in fact

the founding fathers (via the constitution) gave ONLY the following rights;

the right to own guns
the right to not have to quarter soldiers
the right to free speech (as long as it doesn't offend any white male conservative christians)
the right to vote (as long as you are a WHITE MALE LAND OWNER)

and THAT is IT!

THOSE are THE ONLY RIGHTS YOU HAVE!

anyone demanding ANY OTHER RIGHT is bordering on TREASON!

thank you

your attempt at sarcasm shows your idiocy. The constitution does not provide rights. It protects the rights already ordained by the creator (in any form that works for you) from organized government. Moron. The founders saw government as a leviathan that is a necessary evil to prevent anarchy and maintain peace and the rule of law. That is the government's job, not to "give rights". People like you make me sick, but you are just the product of a fucked up education system so it's not your fault I guess. Try reading some federalist papers.

 

[Big Fitz]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.

absolutely

i completely agree

and far beyond universal health care the founding fathers (and the constitution) do NOT include the RIGHT to

think
get married
have children
work
earn money
sleep in a bed
wear clothes
drink beer
eat food

in fact

the founding fathers (via the constitution) gave ONLY the following rights;

Let's not forget that many of the founding fathers argued against putting ANY rights in the consitution, maintaining that ALL UNMENTIONED RIGHTS are given to the people, and only list negative rights that the government cannot do to you, lest people forget that the bill of rights are not their ONLY rights.

But good of you to try and twist that around for tyranny.

the right to own guns
the right to not have to quarter soldiers
the right to free speech (as long as it doesn't offend any white male conservative christians)
the right to vote (as long as you are a WHITE MALE LAND OWNER)

and THAT is IT!

THOSE are THE ONLY RIGHTS YOU HAVE!

anyone demanding ANY OTHER RIGHT is bordering on TREASON!

Not just lies... Fucking disingenuous, intellectually and morally bankrupt lies of a depraved individual. Another rare occasion where a lolcat is required to convey my revulsion of your lack of intellect.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Guys, Big Meow doesn't rule anything much less the Board. He is fun to watch and correct often for his inanities.

 

[Greenbeard]

Please show why compartmentalization is a bad thing.

I didn't say it was a bad thing (you'll have to take that up with Dude). I'm pointing out that it's a poor rationale for opposing federal intervention, since compartmentalization exists only due to the absence of a prominent federal involvement.

Which is the core of the MISTRANSLATION of the whole commerce clause.

This interpretation and precedent have been influential for the better part of a century and have been uphold by numerous courts (including the Rehnquist court, even as it was reeling in use of the Commerce Clause). You may not like it but stare decisis is significantly more important to American jurisprudence than are your personal preferences.

However, since personal preference seems to be the basis of your arguments, I don't see much reason to continue this.

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's not the argument here. I'm simply establishing that the federal government has the authority to create and regulate health insurance exchanges. The individual mandate then follows pretty naturally as 1) a usage of Congress's general taxation power and 2) a necessary (and proper) component of successfully implementing guaranteed issue and community rating regulations in the exchanges.

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.

What's happening behind your back?

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....

To repeat my initial post to you:

You're going to have to be significantly more specific. You don't think the government has discretion over the tax treatment of health benefits (either in the individual market or benefits provided by an employer)? Or do you not think it can regulate industries? Or are you only talking about the individual mandate?

 

[Oddball]

You may not like it but stare decisis is significantly more important to American jurisprudence than are your personal preferences.

Dred Scott was stare decisis, too...That didn't make it right.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm pointing out that it's a poor rationale for opposing federal intervention, since compartmentalization exists only due to the absence of a prominent federal involvement.

The desire to prevent a national police state? Sounds like very wise rationale to me. You obviously do not agree with the belief of a weak central government like the founders did.

This interpretation and precedent have been influential for the better part of a century and have been uphold by numerous courts (including the Rehnquist court, even as it was reeling in use of the Commerce Clause).

You try to make two appeals to both authority and equivalency that are not accurate. The fact that that this misinterpretation has not been overturned implies concurrence. This is not true. As we all should know the Supreme Court takes on cases it wants from those brought before it. There are times when it can pick up old rulings to re-examine but this is almost never done unless a pressing issue compels it. It is more than likely going to just let things go until they become problems and then deal with them then.

Secondly you seem to think that the Reinquist court means something special to me. It does not. It was fairly liberal and therefore I would expect to see it continue making decisions or ignoring previous activism from the Marshall court which was extremely radical by comparison. So your appeal to authority fails again.

That's not the argument here.

Oh really? Then why say this:

I'm simply establishing that the federal government has the authority to create and regulate health insurance exchanges.

No, it does not. This 'found' power does not exist except in the imagination of statists and fascists who wish to rule, not govern. Were blacks able to 'opt out' of segregation laws?

The individual mandate then follows pretty naturally as 1) a usage of Congress's general taxation power and 2) a necessary (and proper) component of successfully implementing guaranteed issue and community rating regulations in the exchanges.

No, you don't get to try and attach taxation to forced consumerism. That argument is not valid.

It is neither necessary or proper for the government to be involved in something the private sector provides for itself quite well when not interfered with, OR is being taken care of on the state level.

You're going to have to be significantly more specific. You don't think the government has discretion over the tax treatment of health benefits (either in the individual market or benefits provided by an employer)? Or do you not think it can regulate industries? Or are you only talking about the individual mandate?

And I reiterate for the cheap obstinate seats: THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE OR BE INVOLVED IN HEALTH CARE.

You want to play games of relativism and equivalency, find someone else more gullible.