Obamacare just got $111 BILLION more expensive..WTF???

[Syphon]

so if every state has its own system, what if one state wont accept another states insurance? what if you move and now cant get insurance in that other state? what if the quality of care in one state is drastically less than the quality in another state, but since you dont live is the state with good quality health care, you dont have access to it.

hence why the fed setting the standard is needed. if we wanted states to have more control than the fed, the civil war would have been won by the south and the fed would be extremely small.

Blah blah blah blah......

States have their own systems now. Mass and Tenn. If you don't like the state's insurance you won't move there.

You won't have access to it becuase the majority of people in your state DON'T WANT IT.

Or are you saying socialism is O.K.

Move to a state with good health care if that is what you want. That or buy it yourself. Every state will have available what the market demands.

And to think that all states will have equal provision right now or under Obamacare is silly.

As to the civil war......your statement makes no sense. If we wanted smaller government.....???

We were built on the concept of a limited federal government. That hasn't changed at all.

define socialism.... you dont even know what it means.

your a giant douche. you basically just told everyone that they should move out of their home if they dont like their health insurance..... dumbass

if you had an education you would have known the civil war was fought over things other than slavery. the south wanted all the power to reside with the states, while the north wanted to have a strong central government. did you forget that history lesson, or were you just too dumb to understand it?

 

[Listening]

if there were for it back then, why are the against it now?

explain your wingnut logic in that? that in fact is the dumbest argument ever.

again, you show your lack of education and intelligence on every level

for having the name listening, you dont listen very well

It was already explained dumbass.

They were not for it then. They were powerless and fighting Hillarycare. Got it.

IF they really wanted it, they would have had no problem getting it passed in 1994, 2000, 2004 or even 2008.

Or can't you figure that out.

They were blowing smoke in 1993 hoping to fend off what they saw as a radical proposal.

As to the rest of your commentary....I'll let others decide on who has a lack of intelligence on this one. You clearly need some sleep or a history lesson.

Moron.

 

[Bfgrn]

It is absolutely 'free market', so much so that scholars at the American Enterprise Institute were ordered to not to speak to the media or comment on health care reform because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

The Affordable Health Care Act is part and parcel the Responsible National Health Insurance bill Republicans proposed back in the early 1990's.

Including the BIG GOP idea...the Individual Mandate

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010
Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision

its amazing when the GOP votes against its own ideas because the Dems brought it up in a bill. if the Dems are for it, the GOP is against it, even if they used to be for it in the past. only a conservative could understand that

This has to be one of the dumbest arguments I've seen.

If the GOP wanted health care, they had all the votes they needed in 2000. They had the house the senate and the WH. I am quite certain few democrats would have gotten in their way.

As usual you show no understanding of context. The GOP proposal was counter to Hillarycare at a time when the GOP was powerless. Once they got control of the house and senate....you never heard another word.

To think it was anything but a smoke screen is simply partisan crap.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh...so the context is really just insurgency...

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

 

[Syphon]

if there were for it back then, why are the against it now?

explain your wingnut logic in that? that in fact is the dumbest argument ever.

again, you show your lack of education and intelligence on every level

for having the name listening, you dont listen very well

It was already explained dumbass.

They were not for it then. They were powerless and fighting Hillarycare. Got it.

IF they really wanted it, they would have had no problem getting it passed in 1994, 2000, 2004 or even 2008.

Or can't you figure that out.

They were blowing smoke in 1993 hoping to fend off what they saw as a radical proposal.

As to the rest of your commentary....I'll let others decide on who has a lack of intelligence on this one. You clearly need some sleep or a history lesson.

Moron.

why would you propose something you wouldnt support? so when im against something, the idea then is to propose something else that i dont even agree with? now youve gone from stupid to just plain retarded.

go read a history book about the civil war before you look more idiotic than you already do.

 

[Listening]

so if every state has its own system, what if one state wont accept another states insurance? what if you move and now cant get insurance in that other state? what if the quality of care in one state is drastically less than the quality in another state, but since you dont live is the state with good quality health care, you dont have access to it.

hence why the fed setting the standard is needed. if we wanted states to have more control than the fed, the civil war would have been won by the south and the fed would be extremely small.

Blah blah blah blah......

States have their own systems now. Mass and Tenn. If you don't like the state's insurance you won't move there.

You won't have access to it becuase the majority of people in your state DON'T WANT IT.

Or are you saying socialism is O.K.

Move to a state with good health care if that is what you want. That or buy it yourself. Every state will have available what the market demands.

And to think that all states will have equal provision right now or under Obamacare is silly.

As to the civil war......your statement makes no sense. If we wanted smaller government.....???

We were built on the concept of a limited federal government. That hasn't changed at all.

define socialism.... you dont even know what it means.

your a giant douche. you basically just told everyone that they should move out of their home if they dont like their health insurance..... dumbass

if you had an education you would have known the civil war was fought over things other than slavery. the south wanted all the power to reside with the states, while the north wanted to have a strong central government. did you forget that history lesson, or were you just too dumb to understand it?

You really like making stuff up to argue against.

Your education has failed you because it was the founders who wanted strong state government. You might want to look up the articles of confederation. And follow that by the federalist papers which were written by people trying to convince the people of the state of New York that the federal government would be limited....try 44/45/46.

That the southern states took it to far is not in dispute, but you don't get it. They called themselves a confederacy for a reason....hence.

The north didn't want a strong central government. They simply wanted to keep the union.

That you don't know the difference is really not my problem.

As to moving out of their houses....only a jackass could draw that kind of conclusion. If you are going to depend on a state for insurance...you better pay attention to what state you are moving to....even leeches need to think. People move out of states all the time because of school systems .

Or you can buy private insurance like you can in couuntries with government health care. Ooops did you hear something you didn't know ?

So, please keep the argument (if you dare call it that) to the facts, junior. You look stupid enough as it is without making stuff up.

 

[Listening]

why would you propose something you wouldnt support? so when im against something, the idea then is to propose something else that i dont even agree with? now youve gone from stupid to just plain retarded.

go read a history book about the civil war before you look more idiotic than you already do.

Yes, using your logic, they should have passed Hillarycare in 1994. You are now just being ignorant.

That you don't see that tells me that you not only don't understand business...you don't understand politics.

I'll stay by my understanding of history. What you need is a course in the founding of our country.

 

[Syphon]

Blah blah blah blah......

States have their own systems now. Mass and Tenn. If you don't like the state's insurance you won't move there.

You won't have access to it becuase the majority of people in your state DON'T WANT IT.

Or are you saying socialism is O.K.

Move to a state with good health care if that is what you want. That or buy it yourself. Every state will have available what the market demands.

And to think that all states will have equal provision right now or under Obamacare is silly.

As to the civil war......your statement makes no sense. If we wanted smaller government.....???

We were built on the concept of a limited federal government. That hasn't changed at all.

define socialism.... you dont even know what it means.

your a giant douche. you basically just told everyone that they should move out of their home if they dont like their health insurance..... dumbass

if you had an education you would have known the civil war was fought over things other than slavery. the south wanted all the power to reside with the states, while the north wanted to have a strong central government. did you forget that history lesson, or were you just too dumb to understand it?

You really like making stuff up to argue against.

Your education has failed you because it was the founders who wanted strong state government. You might want to look up the articles of confederation. And follow that by the federalist papers which were written by people trying to convince the people of the state of New York that the federal government would be limited....try 44/45/46.

That the southern states took it to far is not in dispute, but you don't get it. They called themselves a confederacy for a reason....hence.

The north didn't want a strong central government. They simply wanted to keep the union.

That you don't know the difference is really not my problem.

As to moving out of their houses....only a jackass could draw that kind of conclusion. If you are going to depend on a state for insurance...you better pay attention to what state you are moving to....even leeches need to think. People move out of states all the time because of school systems .

Or you can buy private insurance like you can in couuntries with government health care. Ooops did you hear something you didn't know ?

So, please keep the argument (if you dare call it that) to the facts, junior. You look stupid enough as it is without making stuff up.

how do you know exactly what the founders wanted? did you know them personally? have you spoken to them?

apparently 5th graders know more than you do

North

factories, favored taxes that protected them from foreign competition
money not plentiful, but developing
freedom for slaves
urban society, people held jobs
Strong central government, wanted the nation to stay together

South
large plantations, opposed taxes that would raise prices and hurt sales to New England states
prospered from farming tobacco & cotton
depended on slavery
lived in small villages and on farms
State's rights important (secession)


Southern states wanted the right to declare any national law illegal.
Northern states wanted the national government's power to be supreme over the states.

who won the civic war again??????

The Civil War for Fifth Graders

somebody isnt smarter than a 5th grader....

 

[Listening]

define socialism.... you dont even know what it means.

your a giant douche. you basically just told everyone that they should move out of their home if they dont like their health insurance..... dumbass

if you had an education you would have known the civil war was fought over things other than slavery. the south wanted all the power to reside with the states, while the north wanted to have a strong central government. did you forget that history lesson, or were you just too dumb to understand it?

You really like making stuff up to argue against.

Your education has failed you because it was the founders who wanted strong state government. You might want to look up the articles of confederation. And follow that by the federalist papers which were written by people trying to convince the people of the state of New York that the federal government would be limited....try 44/45/46.

That the southern states took it to far is not in dispute, but you don't get it. They called themselves a confederacy for a reason....hence.

The north didn't want a strong central government. They simply wanted to keep the union.

That you don't know the difference is really not my problem.

As to moving out of their houses....only a jackass could draw that kind of conclusion. If you are going to depend on a state for insurance...you better pay attention to what state you are moving to....even leeches need to think. People move out of states all the time because of school systems .

Or you can buy private insurance like you can in couuntries with government health care. Ooops did you hear something you didn't know ?

So, please keep the argument (if you dare call it that) to the facts, junior. You look stupid enough as it is without making stuff up.

how do you know exactly what the founders wanted? did you know them personally? have you spoken to them?

apparently 5th graders know more than you do

North

factories, favored taxes that protected them from foreign competition
money not plentiful, but developing
freedom for slaves
urban society, people held jobs
Strong central government, wanted the nation to stay together

South
large plantations, opposed taxes that would raise prices and hurt sales to New England states
prospered from farming tobacco & cotton
depended on slavery
lived in small villages and on farms
State's rights important (secession)


Southern states wanted the right to declare any national law illegal.
Northern states wanted the national government's power to be supreme over the states.

who won the civic war again??????

The Civil War for Fifth Graders

somebody isnt smarter than a 5th grader....

Hahahaha....

Glad to see where you get you material.

Keep espousing that stuff and you'll continue to look like the asshole you are.

When you can discuss the founding of this country and the basis for the constituion, you let me know.

BTW: why don't you check our the squalid 14th amendment and it's history.

And read the slaughter house cases.

A fifth grade book and he quotes from it.....

States right....the 10th amendment.

How long was abortion a state issue ?

 

[Syphon]

You really like making stuff up to argue against.

Your education has failed you because it was the founders who wanted strong state government. You might want to look up the articles of confederation. And follow that by the federalist papers which were written by people trying to convince the people of the state of New York that the federal government would be limited....try 44/45/46.

That the southern states took it to far is not in dispute, but you don't get it. They called themselves a confederacy for a reason....hence.

The north didn't want a strong central government. They simply wanted to keep the union.

That you don't know the difference is really not my problem.

As to moving out of their houses....only a jackass could draw that kind of conclusion. If you are going to depend on a state for insurance...you better pay attention to what state you are moving to....even leeches need to think. People move out of states all the time because of school systems .

Or you can buy private insurance like you can in couuntries with government health care. Ooops did you hear something you didn't know ?

So, please keep the argument (if you dare call it that) to the facts, junior. You look stupid enough as it is without making stuff up.

how do you know exactly what the founders wanted? did you know them personally? have you spoken to them?

apparently 5th graders know more than you do

North

factories, favored taxes that protected them from foreign competition
money not plentiful, but developing
freedom for slaves
urban society, people held jobs
Strong central government, wanted the nation to stay together

South
large plantations, opposed taxes that would raise prices and hurt sales to New England states
prospered from farming tobacco & cotton
depended on slavery
lived in small villages and on farms
State's rights important (secession)


Southern states wanted the right to declare any national law illegal.
Northern states wanted the national government's power to be supreme over the states.

who won the civic war again??????

The Civil War for Fifth Graders

somebody isnt smarter than a 5th grader....

Hahahaha....

Glad to see where you get you material.

Keep espousing that stuff and you'll continue to look like the asshole you are.

When you can discuss the founding of this country and the basis for the constituion, you let me know.

BTW: why don't you check our the squalid 14th amendment and it's history.

And read the slaughter house cases.

A fifth grade book and he quotes from it.....

States right....the 10th amendment.

How long was abortion a state issue ?

yup a radford university website made simple enough for 5th graders to understand, and yet you still cant understand it. that speaks volumes....

 

[Neotrotsky]

Saying PapaObama Care is "free market"

is like one saying they are "a little pregnant"

It is absolutely 'free market', so much so that scholars at the American Enterprise Institute were ordered to not to speak to the media or comment on health care reform because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

The Affordable Health Care Act is part and parcel the Responsible National Health Insurance bill Republicans proposed back in the early 1990's.

Including the BIG GOP idea...the Individual Mandate

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010
Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision

What is amazing how bad Papa Obama care is and what a liability for him....
PapaObama brings it up as little as he can
The Left even gets upset when you say ObamaCare because it has
such large negatives, they want to disassociate Papa Obama's name with it
Good luck with that......


The Left knowing how bad it is, tries to defuse the blame by saying "Republicans
wanted it to ..." or " it is just like your plan.."

We understand that the Party requires you parrot talk their points
but you do need some better left wing websites

------------------------------------------------------------------

Not all mandates are equal, and that the mandate in PapaObamaCare is much different than what they by the right:

Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate

The version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on “catastrophic” costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the “mandate” was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement​

.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This "support" for mandate was for Catastrophic coverage to lower the cost of "free riders" based on loss of tax breaks, not a mandate to buy something because one is a US citizen.
PapaObama Care is federal and forces all Americans to purchase Comprehensive insurance

These mandates go way beyond the power and scoop of anything the right suggested

Your bad comparison is equal to one saying if they support abortion
then they must support forced abortion by the state for population control


So no matter how much the Left wants to run from PapaObama Care

It firmly sits in the hands of the Left
enjoy
this baby is all yours

 

[Listening]

yup a radford university website made simple enough for 5th graders to understand, and yet you still cant understand it. that speaks volumes....

The fact that you hold up a 5th graders website as support for your argument is pretty compelling.....

Let's start with Federalist #45:

The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us.


Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.

We have seen, in all the examples of ancient and modern confederacies, the strongest tendency continually betraying itself in the members, to despoil the general government of its authorities, with a very ineffectual capacity in the latter to defend itself against the encroachments. Although, in most of these examples, the system has been so dissimilar from that under consideration as greatly to weaken any inference concerning the latter from the fate of the former, yet, as the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty, the inference ought not to be wholly disregarded. In the Achaean league it is probable that the federal head had a degree and species of power, which gave it a considerable likeness to the government framed by the convention. The Lycian Confederacy, as far as its principles and form are transmitted, must have borne a still greater analogy to it. Yet history does not inform us that either of them ever degenerated, or tended to degenerate, into one consolidated government. On the contrary, we know that the ruin of one of them proceeded from the incapacity of the federal authority to prevent the dissensions, and finally the disunion, of the subordinate authorities. These cases are the more worthy of our attention, as the external causes by which the component parts were pressed together were much more numerous and powerful than in our case; and consequently less powerful ligaments within would be sufficient to bind the members to the head, and to each other.

In the feudal system, we have seen a similar propensity exemplified. Notwithstanding the want of proper sympathy in every instance between the local sovereigns and the people, and the sympathy in some instances between the general sovereign and the latter, it usually happened that the local sovereigns prevailed in the rivalship for encroachments. Had no external dangers enforced internal harmony and subordination, and particularly, had the local sovereigns possessed the affections of the people, the great kingdoms in Europe would at this time consist of as many independent princes as there were formerly feudatory barons.

The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.

The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter. The members of the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments of thirteen and more States, the justices of peace, officers of militia, ministerial officers of justice, with all the county, corporation, and town officers, for three millions and more of people, intermixed, and having particular acquaintance with every class and circle of people, must exceed, beyond all proportion, both in number and influence, those of every description who will be employed in the administration of the federal system. Compare the members of the three great departments of the thirteen States, excluding from the judiciary department the justices of peace, with the members of the corresponding departments of the single government of the Union; compare the militia officers of three millions of people with the military and marine officers of any establishment which is within the compass of probability, or, I may add, of possibility, and in this view alone, we may pronounce the advantage of the States to be decisive. If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side. It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

 

[Listening]

And here is from 39:

But if the government be national with regard to the OPERATION of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the EXTENT of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.

 

[Listening]

And this is from 46:

It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former. It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage. But in a distinct and very important point of view, the advantage will lie on the same side. The prepossessions, which the members themselves will carry into the federal government, will generally be favorable to the States; whilst it will rarely happen, that the members of the State governments will carry into the public councils a bias in favor of the general government. A local spirit will infallibly prevail much more in the members of Congress, than a national spirit will prevail in the legislatures of the particular States. Every one knows that a great proportion of the errors committed by the State legislatures proceeds from the disposition of the members to sacrifice the comprehensive and permanent interest of the State, to the particular and separate views of the counties or districts in which they reside. And if they do not sufficiently enlarge their policy to embrace the collective welfare of their particular State, how can it be imagined that they will make the aggregate prosperity of the Union, and the dignity and respectability of its government, the objects of their affections and consultations? For the same reason that the members of the State legislatures will be unlikely to attach themselves sufficiently to national objects, the members of the federal legislature will be likely to attach themselves too much to local objects. The States will be to the latter what counties and towns are to the former. Measures will too often be decided according to their probable effect, not on the national prosperity and happiness, but on the prejudices, interests, and pursuits of the governments and people of the individual States. What is the spirit that has in general characterized the proceedings of Congress? A perusal of their journals, as well as the candid acknowledgments of such as have had a seat in that assembly, will inform us, that the members have but too frequently displayed the character, rather of partisans of their respective States, than of impartial guardians of a common interest; that where on one occasion improper sacrifices have been made of local considerations, to the aggrandizement of the federal government, the great interests of the nation have suffered on a hundred, from an undue attention to the local prejudices, interests, and views of the particular States. I mean not by these reflections to insinuate, that the new federal government will not embrace a more enlarged plan of policy than the existing government may have pursued; much less, that its views will be as confined as those of the State legislatures; but only that it will partake sufficiently of the spirit of both, to be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the preorgatives of their governments. The motives on the part of the State governments, to augment their prerogatives by defalcations from the federal government, will be overruled by no reciprocal predispositions in the members.

Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

 

[Listening]

And on the 10th amendment:

The purpose of the 10th Amendment is to define the establishment and division of power between the Federal government and state governments. This amendment also protects these powers from both entities. This amendment was used to define the federal taxing power, federal police power, and federal regulations.

At one time, it was read very simply, if it is not in the constitution, the federal government could not pass it to the states. Through the years, the power of the federal government has expanded through the Supreme Court.

The Founding Fathers established this country on the Compact Theory. This theory states that the federal government is a compact of the states, and that the government was a creation of the states.

This is evident in the Treaty of Paris and the Articles of Confederation. The Treaty of Paris stated that the 13 former colonies were “free sovereign and independent states.” The Articles of Confederation also adopted this idea as the second article clearly states, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated.”

When they wrote the Constitution, they included the 10th amendment, which states, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated.” The problem with this statement is that is was too open for implication by our government.

At this time, Congressional power came from Article 6, section 2, The Supremacy Clause. This stated that the federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the state judges must abide by this constitution, even if it conflicts with the constitution of the state.

While this country was still young, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed this to be an overstep of Congressional authority, so they drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolution.

They believed that the federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it; should the federal government assume such powers, its acts under them would be void. Thus, it was the right of the states to decide as to the constitutionality of such laws passed by Congress. They utilized the theory of Nullification, which stated that the States were to interpret the Constitution, and any acts they saw unconstitutional were nullified.

The original enemy to the cause of State’s rights and federalism was John Marshall. He was a Supreme Court Justice in the early 1800′s. He handed down two major rulings to cut down State’s Rights. One was McCulloch vs. Maryland.

In this case, he determined that the Constitution grants the federal government implied powers to implement the Constitution’s express powers, as well as that the state’s action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government. In the other case, Gibbons vs. Ogden, he established that the federal government had the right to regulate interstate commerce by the Commerce Clause.

Chief Justice Marshall’s successor was Roger B. Taney. He established a system of Dual Federalism, where separate but equal branches of government are the best option. Dual federalism is based on the federal and state’s government is split into separate spheres, and is supreme in those spheres. It discusses specifically the role between these two governments.

This theory holds the federal government to certain limitations, these being: the government rules by enumerated power, government has a limited set of constitutional purposes, state and federal government is sovereign within its sphere of operation, and the relationship between the federal and state government is best described as tension instead of cooperation. This system lasted for over a century.

The 16th and 17th amendments both gave great power to the federal government. The 16th amendment allowed the federal government to levy an income tax. The 17th amendment changed the Constitution in which they were no longer appointed by the state legislators, but instead elected by the people. This took away the states ability of direct representation.

Through direct representation, the senators were more apt to protect states rights, and were viewed as the states “ambassador” to the federal government. Interesting fact, the state of Georgia has never ratified the 17th amendment.

President Franklin Roosevelt brought about his New Deal, taking more away from the states. This measure brought about Cooperative Federalism. Cooperative Federalism is where the national and state governments “cooperate” with each other. They cooperate by the federal government telling the states what to do, and the states doing it.

This form of federalism brought about a change in federal aid as well. Funds are distributed through grants, which gives the federal government more power over spending and over the states, as these funds come on a quid pro quo basis.

Now, we have a movement called New Federalism, which was started by Ronald Reagan and his revolution in the 1980s. There are several court cases in the 1990′s, under Chief Justice Rehnquist, that displayed the cause of New Federalism.

The case of United States vs. Lopez decided that the federal government did not have the right, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate firearms in school zones. In the case of United States vs. Morrison, the court decided that victims of gender-motivated crimes could not sue their attackers in federal court.

 

[Listening]

how do you know exactly what the founders wanted? did you know them personally? have you spoken to them?

So, I think it 's pretty much been shown that they spoke to us.

It is unfortunate that your tiny brain is being shaped by 5th grade books and that someone is telling you that makes you look like an adult.

When you are done arguing with Madison, let me know.

I need a good laugh from time to time.

Quoting from a poorly written misinformed book for 5th graders....

 

[Listening]

And you've never bothered to explain why, if the GOP wanted health care...the didn't pass it in 1994 or any time after that.

The 1993 proposal was a smokescreen. Once Hillarycare died, you never heard about it again.

 

[Trajan]

has already gotten on paper, ( which can still be argued is higher)$ 5 billion more expensive...

Congress made a policy change five months ago to put more people into the exchange. As I recall, many on the right (including wingnuts like yourself) were very upset that some SS benefits might not count as income under the MAGI definition, thus letting some folks they didn't want in Medicaid become eligible for Medicaid. So Congress intervened to change the MAGI definition and put them into the exchanges. Meaning more exchange subsidies paid out.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWLBljvEG-M]The horror[/ame]

is that you Jillian? Oh, no wait, the wingnut label thing threw me, my apologies to jillian....you just don't like being called on your BS. OC has gotten more expensive and keeps requiring tweaks here there everywhere and the rcie will rise incrementally under the radar or with huge swings like this one buried item, and like the good little boiler room drone you are, you'll squirm with endless palaver, bury yourself is barely comprehensible detail, till you are once again, boxed in.

Take CLASS, its dead, my my my what it must have taken for Sebelius to eat that bullet.

BUT we both know you'll try it again, using the age old name change hack tactic, and it will fail, in practice if it gets that far, which is possible, I put nothing beyond you and yours.


You love it though, see its the Central Planning chase,its the bureaucratic buggery that floats your boat, becasue you're 'involved', you're in the fight and you're in the right, you don't care really that it will never ever fulfill its 'mandate', you're 'making a difference'.


my old siggy requires a repost-

"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."---C. S. Lewis

 

[Bfgrn]

how do you know exactly what the founders wanted? did you know them personally? have you spoken to them?

So, I think it 's pretty much been shown that they spoke to us.

It is unfortunate that your tiny brain is being shaped by 5th grade books and that someone is telling you that makes you look like an adult.

When you are done arguing with Madison, let me know.

I need a good laugh from time to time.

Quoting from a poorly written misinformed book for 5th graders....

Do you support tort reform?

 

[Listening]

Do you support tort reform?

I'm sorry, but that is somewhat like asking if I support equal rights.

It is to nebulous a question.

I support some tort reform to specific ends. And I don't claim to know everything there is to know about it.

 

[Immanuel]

somehow every other industrialized nation in the world has figured it out. are you saying all those countries are smarter than we are?

Why Switzerland Has the World's Best Health Care System - Forbes

The difference is other countries have moved to a single payer or modified single payer system. The number of healthcare systems we have raises the cost and lowers the quality.

I seriously question the quality comment.

But you are a pretty reliable poster so I'll look for your supporting documentation.

I also question the costs part. Competition lowers the cost of products unless there is collusion in the pricing which may be the case here, as also may be government regulations among other things.

If it is simply competition the prices are lower than they would be if we only had one insurer for us all: a lot lower.

Immie