Obamacare in Trouble? Intrade Odds Jump from 38% to 60% That SCOTUS Will Reject Mandate
Intrade odds for the Supreme Court to rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional shot up today from 38% to 60% (as of 2:44 p.m. ET), as the some of the justices are showing skepticism.
According to this LA Times article:
According to this LA Times article:
"Are there any limits," asked Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of three conservative justices whose votes are seen as crucial to the fate of the unprecedented insurance mandate.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that the government might require Americans to buy cellphones to be ready for emergencies. And Justice Antonin Scalia asked if the government might require Americans to buy broccoli or automobiles. "If the government can do this, what else can it do?”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that the government might require Americans to buy cellphones to be ready for emergencies. And Justice Antonin Scalia asked if the government might require Americans to buy broccoli or automobiles. "If the government can do this, what else can it do?”
HT: Madison Felder
188 Comments:
"...indicated they might split 5-to-4, with five Republican appointees banding together to topple the law."
Why waste time on law when they can play politics?
I've been following the case and reading the transcripts, and it certainly is interesting, that's for sure. I'm surprised the odds jumped so much, though, especially since the remarks from Justice Kennedy (the typical swing vote) were anything but concrete.
I'm not sure it matters that much anyhow.
In fact, if the SCOTUS upholds it, it ought to supercharge the GOP candidate who promises to repeal it if elected.
If it gets turned down - I think a lot of people are going to start asking what the GOP wants to do and as far as I can tell they don't have a unified agenda - just a bunch of different ideas from different people.
The really funny thing here is that we are already paying for those without insurance.
What's one of the biggest budget gorillas in the closet these days?
MedicAid - medical care for those without insurance.
It's 500 billion in the current budget and threatens to double in a decade or so.
Would Romney actually get elected if he threatened to repeal Obama Care AND MedicAid and block grant Medicare?
A LOT of people ..unemployed people have lost their employer-provided health care in the last few years...
Could Romney get elected if he said that health care was the responsibility of the States and he was going to block grant both MedicAid and Medicare?
I'm not sure it matters that much anyhow.
I understand your point as to the ruling's affect on the election, but I'd argue the bigger issue here is the power of the government. But that is a discussion for another time.
Romney would have a hard time getting elected if he took a hard-line stance on any of those issues. I'd expect him, once he gets the nomination, to moderate his stance somewhat for the general election. All candidates do that when running in the general election and even more so when elected. Remember how Candidate Obama wanted to legalize pot, Nominee Obama wanted to spread medical pot, and now President Obama wants to expand the drug war? This is politics.
Probably right about SCOTUS.
Even though it isn't a mandate.
You can opt out of healthcare costs, if you pay the free rider fee.
The real mandate would come from the conservative side: you WILL opt out of all health care you cannot pay for individually.
That won't happen, of course, and the result will be that we have the freedom to exercise our individual responsibility by sticking the cost of our emergencies on other taxpayers and insured persons.
The insurance companies will continue to have the freedom to deny coverage, refuse payments and remove coverage retroactively by canceling contracts people have already payed for.
And don't even think about trying to tell me it does not happen.
I'm not sure the American public wants to go back to the previous system.
the bigger issue here is the power of the government.
===================================
I think the big issue here is that the governments primary job is to protect people and their property.
Right now, everyone who pays taxes and/or has insurance is paying $1000 extra every year to pay for those that don't.
If the government has to take on more power and authority to protect people's property from a threat that did not exist when the constitution was written, so be it: the Preamble has all the authority they need to do so.
the american public wants to see obamacare repealed by a staggering amount.
66% want it gone.
arguments that "we have to do somehting" are irrelevant to the debate.
that is no excuse for doing somehting stupid, half cocked, and that has already been shown to be a failure (in mass).
a bad plan is worse than doing nothing. i'm stunned that this "we have to do somehting" argument is carrying any weight.
if we're all in a lifeboat and out of water, we have to do somehting, but lighting the boat on fire is hardly justified just because it's something.
Hydra you call the IRS penalty a free rider fee. Yet the whole point of the scheme is to actually give away free healthcare to others. That is the whole point. How does that make sense? It is a "free rider fee" in order that others really get free coverage.
"If the government has to take on more power and authority to protect people's property from a threat that did not exist when the constitution was written, so be it:"
And what threat might that be, other than more government power and authority?
"the Preamble has all the authority they need to do so."
You could REALLY benefit from thinking longer before writing such obvious nonsense.
If the preamble was sufficient in itself, and the federal government can basically do whatever it wants, why do you suppose the Founders spent so many months debating and arguing and continuing to write more? Why didn't they just stop right then and go home?
You should be aware that the Preamble is a statement of intent - here's why we are here, and here's what we intend to accomplish.
The rest of the Constitution is the actual framework for the federal government, and very carefully defines and limits those powers the sovereign States were granting to their agent, a central government, to act on their behalf.
Anticipating that changes might be necessary in the future, they even included an amendment process, that has been used many times to alter the original document to reflect changing needs.
Do you think the Founders, as wary as they were of a powerful central government like the one they had recently evicted, inadvertently granted powers in their statement of intent without realizing it?
What dummies they must have been!
If you were interested, there is plenty of material written by the Founders themselves, and others of that period of time in history, that make their intentions very clear, and would disabuse you of your laughable notion that the Preamble grants vague and limitless powers.
"If the government has to take on more power and authority to protect people's property from a threat that did not exist when the constitution was written, so be it: the Preamble has all the authority they need to do so"...
ROFLMAO!
Thank you again hydra for reaffirming how tenuous your grip on reality is....
LMAO!
PREAMBLE
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...
"Even though it isn't a mandate.
You can opt out of healthcare costs, if you pay the free rider fee."
Yeah, there are no such thing as a mandate. We always have choices.
I can opt out of paying taxes, if I'm willing to go to prison instead.
we're still paying for the free riders though through EMTALA which adds about $1000 to insurance premiums and about a billion dollars in taxes for things like MedicAid and SCHIPS, etc.
so, we're already paying and those costs are 16% of our economy and projected to to be 30% in a decade or less.
so we don't like ObamaCare as the answer but what do we want instead?
....that's politically supportable?
juandos,
"...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What Constitution? Nothing more is needed. See those words "General Welfare" in the Preamble? That's all we need to know, sez Hydra. The rest is just footnotes.
The mind boggles.
Peak - stop with the partisan whining. If the court were packed with your kind, you'd be crowing about the wisdom of their decision!
The mind boggles to think that someone believes those radical gentlemen put those words about Justice, domestic tranquility, common defence, general welfare, and Oh yeah, Liberty, up front of the rest for no good reason.
The government has one main job: protect people and their property. All the rest is just footnotes and procedure.
We always have choices.
I can opt out of paying taxes, if I'm willing to go to prison instead.
=================================
OK, in this case your choice is to be a free rider, in order to prove your conviction in favor of personal responsbility.
tenuous your grip on reality is....
LMAO!
PREAMBLE
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...
===============================
Roughly translated -
The Reason we are writing this consitituion is to establish a means to provide for agreement between the states, justice, domestic peace, international defence, the general welfare, and liberty.
You have some other version of reality, or is the the one the founding foathers wrote too hilarious for you to contemplate?
I agree with your translation completely, Hydra, and I think everyone else here would too. The question becomes the rest of the document. The question before the Supreme Court is not whether or not Congress can regulate health care, but how can it. Does the Commerce Clause give Congress the power to compel a purchase if the market is big/nationally important enough?
most of my friends on the far left, who thought that obamacare was a sellout to the insurance companies & big pharma, want to see the whole law thrown out...
what if the government required everyone to give money to a church?
our health system is really a faith based system with a bunch of very wealthy health care providers who might also be called "witch doctors"
we have been brain washed into believing that modern medicine is essential to life
IT ISN'T
You should be aware that the Preamble is a statement of intent - here's why we are here, and here's what we intend to accomplish.
=================================
Isnt that exactly what I said?
They intended to accomplish the establishment of a government that does these things, two of which are protecting liberty and promoting the general welfare.
Just as Ron pointed out, you always have to make choices, sometimes the goals conflict.
But, if you can make the case that some action furthers one of those goals, there is no need to alter the rest of the document to achieve that end.
If you want to alter the document, there is a procedure for doing that, and it doesn't always work, either, so let's not pretend the document is perfect and ironclad.
Suppose Steve Jobs invented some miracle device that radically improved our freedom, but it needed something government could not provide without a constitutional amendment to allow it to work.
Would you suggest we let this storehouse of liberty languish in the warehouse while we amend the constitution to do what it was built for in the first place?
There is a procedure for altering the health care law, too. Abolish it if you can get the votes: no consitutional challenge needed, no supreme court hearing.
And after you do that, explain to me how he general welfare is improved by going back to a situation in which the states allow insurors to void their contracts retroactively.
"OK, in this case your choice is to be a free rider, in order to prove your conviction in favor of personal responsbility"
Your statement was that "it" isn't a mandate. I pointed out that you seem to be unfamiliar with the meaning of the word.
You now seem to be asserting that a mandate is a good thing, but your comment shows that you don't understand the bigger picture either.
I provide for my own medical care in the manner I think best, and I'm not asking anyone to pay for anything on my behalf, nor do I expect it. I don't need to be told I must buy coverage or pay a penalty. Other people may choose not to pay for medical coverage, as they are healthy and
are willing to accept the risks.
They should have that choice, as we all do with so many things in our lives, like food, clothing, shelter, etc. - at least for now.
If you are concerned about being forced to pay for someone's medical treatment when they cannot, then your objections should be directed toward those who force you to do so, rather than those who wish to assume responsibility for themselves.
Any response from you shouldn't include the phrase "dying in the streets", or any such nonsense.
what if the government required everyone to give money to a church?
=================================
What if? That isn't the issue on the table.
When SS was put in place people said "What if the government set the retirement age at 30 and forced the young to support everyone else?"
But, if you want to make that argument:
Some people believe this IS a government based on belief in God. As long as government isn't promoting a PARTICULAR church, and as long a government is not involved inthe church and does not allow the nonbelievers to be free riders (everyone has to support the church charities and soup kitchens because everyone benefits), then how is that all that different from the Pork check off?
I'm not making that argument, but if enough people get enough legislators to pass it, then there might be a reason to let the government go ahead and do as we asked.
If we don't like it, we already have the tools to stop it, no constitutional amendment required.
hello!! Very interesting discussion glad that I came across such informative post. Keep up the good work friend. Glad to be part of your net community.public liability insurance
=================================
Obviously you are not a member of the volunteer rescue squad.
Your statement was that "it" isn't a mandate.
=================================
It is not "my argument" but I repeated the idea that there is no mandate to have health insurance if there is a provision to opt out.
As you pointed out, you have to make a choice though, because that option, like every other option, is not free.
as they are healthy and
are willing to accept the risks.
================================
Except, that is the problem. They accept the risks right up until they need morphine, which they WILL GET at someone elses expense.
They are not, in fact, fully accepting the risk. It is a temporal acceptance.
Now, would you prefer the option of not having health care, if it came with the mandate that the option is permanent? You accept all risk forever?
================================
Besides, this is all a red heering. The real issue is do we allow insurors to continue to deny coverage, deny payment, and retroactively void their contracts.
Given that we no longer allow such behavior on their part, we have an obligation to make sure they have enough money to continue doing as we ask.
My county no longer allows the behavior that consists of development on agricultural land. Fine, but if they expect to have any farms, they had better make sure the farms have a sufficient flow of money.
They should have that choice, as we all do with so many things in our lives, like food, clothing, shelter, etc. - at least for now.
=============================
Yeah, try opting out of clothing and see how long tht lasts before someone claims you are harming them.
Pretty damn quick some fireman will show up and wrap you in a blanket, whether you like it or not. You can have droopy drawers, but you gotta have some drawers.
Sure, you can go to the nude beach and bee free as a bird, for a while. Sooner or later you will need clothes, as surely as you will need morphine.
we have been brain washed into believing that modern medicine is essential to life
IT ISN'T
================================
Nope, it is only essential to a longer, healthier, pain free life.
Without it, I would have died a slow and painful death, in my twenties.
But, what the heck, you are right, it was not after all ESSENTIAL. I could have made the choice to die, so I would not have to pay that wealthy damn pharmacist.
"The mind boggles to think that someone believes those radical gentlemen put those words about Justice, domestic tranquility, common defence, general welfare, and Oh yeah, Liberty, up front of the rest for no good reason."
But no one believes they wrote that for no good reason. They made a general statement of intent, so anyone who wished to continue reading - unlike you who is satisfied with only that part - would understand the purpose of the document that followed.
The longer document that followed described in great detail, precisely how those objectives were to be achieved.
Try reading the rest. It's not very long.
The Founders listed a few very specific powers the states were granting to the central government, and took great pains to point out their intent to limit that government, by stating clearly that if a power wasn't listed right there, then it wasn't available to central government.
Article 1 Sect. 8. Fascinating stuff. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me.
The reference in Article 1 Sect. 8 to General Welfare makes it clear that whatever Congress did, within the strict guidelines given, must be for the "general welfare", not for some people and not others. These days we call them "special interests". It is a *limiting* statement, not a grant of all possible power as you seem to think.
You will find, if you read it, that the Constitution grants no rights to people, as they already have unalienable rights, but in every part limits the power of government to the bare minimum necessary to do it's assigned tasks.
Even that hasn't been enough, as that government has, from the very beginning, overstepped it's authority, and grown until we have the monstrosity we see today, that would be totally unrecognizable to the Founders.
What makes this case so exciting is the precedence.
Never before has Congress tried to exercise this kind power.
This health care law is unlike anything ever passed before (a fact acknowledged by both the justices and the government). For the first time, Congress is requiring a purchase under threat of penalty. Before, services such as Social Security, were paid via taxes. This is something entirely different.
The question facing the court is: is this constitutional?
This is exciting! This is a once-in-a-generation case.
You will find, if you read it, that the Constitution grants no rights to people, as they already have unalienable rights, but in every part limits the power of government to the bare minimum necessary to do it's assigned tasks.
There is also that little thing called the 9th and 10th Amendments:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certian rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
and
"The powers not specifically delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people."
"The Reason we are writing this consitituion is to establish a means to provide for agreement between the states, justice, domestic peace, international defence, the general welfare, and liberty."
That's close enough, but the Founders then wrote a great deal more on exactly how that was to be done.
Your understanding of it is
flawed.
"I think the big issue here is that the governments primary job is to protect people and their property."
It's even simpler than that. The governments ONLY job is to protect the unailienable rights we all have as individuals.
Let me know if KENNEDY places a bet.
It's actually been fluctuating a lot today. There's been a heavy volume of trading, with the price peaking at 65% around 2pm, then setting to around 58% for a while. Heck, it was just at 51% a few minutes ago, and now it's shot back up to 56.7%. Considering it was hovering around 40% through February and March, this is a big change.
It's actually been fluctuating a lot today. There's been a heavy volume of trading, with the price peaking at 65% around 2pm, then setting to around 58% for a while. Heck, it was just at 51% a few minutes ago, and now it's shot back up to 56.7%. Considering it was hovering around 40% through February and March, this is a big change.
Yeah, I saw that too. I think people just don't know how to react.
"They intended to accomplish the establishment of a government that does these things, two of which are protecting liberty and promoting the general welfare."
If you mean that these two goals can be in conflict, you are wrong.
The only legitimate reason to establish ANY government, would be to promote the general welfare - to make people better off.
You wouldn't write, when explaining your intentions in the Preamble to a Constitution that the purpose of the government you were creating was to "reduce the general welfare".
The Supreme Court has ruled the USDA can go onto a farmer's land, and tell him not to grow more than a certain amount of wheat, even for home consumption.
That's fine and dandy according to SCOTUS and the GOP.
"If you want to alter the document, there is a procedure for doing that, and it doesn't always work, either, so let's not pretend the document is perfect and ironclad."
The Constitution is far from perfect, but it was one of the best attempts, at that time, to create a government that would be the servant of the people, instead of the other way around.
The amendment process has always worked as intended. If the people, through a supermajority of their elected representatives, or a supermajority of states through their legistatures, wish to amend the US constitution, a constitutional convention will be formed. If 3/4 of the states then ratify it, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
You may mean that amendments don't always pass, or that when they do, they have unintended consequences, or aren't to everyone's liking, but that not the same thing.
"Suppose Steve Jobs invented some miracle device that radically improved our freedom, but it needed something government could not provide without a constitutional amendment to allow it to work."
In case you hadn't noticed, Steve isn't producing miracle devices anymore, and I don't want to suppose whatever it is your trying to do.
"Would you suggest we let this storehouse of liberty languish in the warehouse while we amend the constitution to do what it was built for in the first place?"
And I thought your previous sentence was meaningless! Please try again.
"There is a procedure for altering the health care law, too. Abolish it if you can get the votes: no consitutional challenge needed, no supreme court hearing. "
You don't think there's any need for a judicial branch?
In the early days, Congressmen actually considered whether what they were writing was Constitutional, as did the President before signing it.
Those days are long gone. "Throw it at the wall & see it it sticks." they now say.
The role of the SCOTUS is to determine constitutionality. That's what they are now doing, we can hope the reach the correct conclusion, although they have clearly often failed in the past.
"When SS was put in place people said "What if the government set the retirement age at 30 and forced the young to support everyone else?""
Reference please. I think you made that up.
"Except, that is the problem. They accept the risks right up until they need morphine, which they WILL GET at someone elses expense."
Then THAT should be the focus of your complaint, not that people shouldn't have choices. Liberty, remember?
"Now, would you prefer the option of not having health care, if it came with the mandate that the option is permanent? You accept all risk forever?"
That is an equally silly suggestion. I do not want a mandate of any kind, but a free market in medical care, and free choice, as I sort of have in many other areas of my life like food.
No one mandates that I have a food plan to cover the possibility I might incur large, unexpected food bills, or become unable to feed myself.
No one suggests that since I'm already paying to feed people who can't care for themselves, I might as well be forced to pay for a government approved food plan, or pay a tax penalty.
Jon M: "Never before has Congress tried to exercise this kind power."
"The question facing the court is: is this constitutional?
This is exciting! This is a once-in-a-generation case."
It certainly is! A lot is riding on the outcome here. Imagine if the Court gets it wrong as they have in the past.
What, then, can Congress NOT do?
There is one small glimmer of hope beyond the SCOTUS, and that's state nullification, but that's not very likely, despite the bluster of state AGs. Mr. A. Lincoln kind of put the kibosh on that one.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"The Supreme Court has ruled the USDA can go onto a farmer's land, and tell him not to grow more than a certain amount of wheat, even for home consumption. That's fine and dandy according to SCOTUS and the GOP." -- "Benji"
The laws pertaining to these decisions were all written and passed by progressive "New Deal" Democrats, not the GOP. Further, the law (the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938) was only upheld by the Supreme Court (Wickard v. Filburn, 1942) after FDRs threat to stack the court. Try not to pollute every comment thread with your ignorant bullshit.
I notice the GOP did not unpass those laws.
Lincoln was GOP, no?
What is it, really, that Congress can not do now?
This constutionality thing is a red Herring. If Scotia allows it is constitutional, you will still be opposed to it.
If it turns out to be cheaper and more reliable, you will still be opposed to it. If we let people opt out, you will still be opposed to it.
And the alternative posed to the court today was that people should be able to buy insurance when they need it.
Right. That is the alternative the GOP has to offer?
Also, I hear that one of the original plaintiffs in this case went bankrupt on account of medical bills. And, this is the day after 71 year old Dick Cheney got a heart, no doubt with the help of government paid insurance.
You already pay into a government approved food plan. It is called social security. You planning on opting out of that?
Jeesus that is one warped argument. You wont be paying the free rider fee unless YOU ha e elected to be a free rider. How are you paying for others?
The free riders get free health care now. Far from being an attempt to provide free health care, it is an attempt to collect something from those who would otherwise get it for free.
The threat is hypothetical, but whatever it turns out to be, asteroid impact, sea rise, global famine, alien invasion, nuclear accident, you can be sure the government will be handing out orders to carry out the intent of the preamble. They wont be doing it to protect the seperation of powers or the fourth amendment or whatever.
Message from fathers: here is why we have government. This is how we think government should be organized to prevent too much power in one branch. Now you are on your own. Get out there and invent superpacs so you can better undo our ideas.
You know, there is a way to handle the free-rider problem (which is also a red herring) without trampling over the rights of individuals and a vast expansion of government power: stop legalizing the free-rider. Problem solved.
As to the constitutionality of the law, there are two aspects that must be considered: the letter of the Constitution and the spirit. While the law may not violate the letter of the Constitution, it sure as Hell violates the spirit.
"The Supreme Court has ruled the USDA can go onto a farmer's land, and tell him not to grow more than a certain amount of wheat, even for home consumption.
That's fine and dandy according to SCOTUS and the GOP."
You were doing OK up until the end, when your uncontrollable need to bash the GOP took over, and caused you to embarrass yourself.
I'm sure you realize that the AAA, the act under which Filburn was tried, became law in 1938, a year in which an overwhelming Democrat majority ruled the Senate and House, and of course, that Mussolini fanboy FDR was President.
The Supreme court heard and decided the case in 1942, when an overwhelming Democrat majority ruled both Senate and House, and of course that same Mussolini fanboy was still President. In fact, he had appointed 7 of the 9 Supremes that heard the case.
Where do you find a GOP reference in all that?
She id Daed-
SCOTUS us supposed to be above politics. It's decisions are supposed to reflect the Constitution.
What you are saying is that SCOTUS is just politics---what is Constitutional is only just what the Dems or GOP say it is, and varies year by year.
So whether I can carry a gun, or farm wheat as I wish, or buy health insurance is just all politics. Nothing Constitutional about any of it.
Recently, the US Government decided it could shoot dead Che is Dead, if it thought Che is Dead is a terrorist. No trials, maybe not even any info ever released to the public.
One day Che is Dead would be there, and the next he would not. Is that Constitutional?
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/03/27/keller-large-how-has-life-been-under-health-care-law-in-massachusetts/
This is a editorial by Jon Keller, a commentator on WBZ-TV, the CBS affiliate up here in Boston. It's an interesting perspective on how the Massachusetts health care law, which the national law is based on, has affected Massachusetts.
The TL;DR version of the article is that costs are still spiraling upwards and there has been little-to-know improvement in the overall health of the state, but no oppressive bureaucratic system has developed.
btw, can anyone tell me how to embed a link into my comments?
"I notice the GOP did not unpass those laws."
I'm not aware of ANY law has ever been unpassed, although there may be some.
Once something becomes law, it is law forever.
"Lincoln was GOP, no?"
What does that mean to you and what point are you trying to make?
Are you familiar with Lincoln outside of what you learned in school?
"What is it, really, that Congress can not do now?"
Legally, or illegally?
"This constutionality thing is a red Herring. If Scotia allows it is constitutional, you will still be opposed to it.
Who is Scotia? It is, in fact, unconstitutional, whether the Court finds it so or not, so yes, I will be opposed to it. The Court has made many incorrect calls in the past. Would you like a short list?
"If it turns out to be cheaper and more reliable, you will still be opposed to it. If we let people opt out, you will still be opposed to it."
This has nothing to do with reliability or price, and everything to do with unlawful government involvement in peoples person lives, and private business.
"And the alternative posed to the court today was that people should be able to buy insurance when they need it."
The case has nothing to do with insurance, and everything to do with government mandating that each person must buy a product.
"Right. That is the alternative the GOP has to offer?"
This isn't a GOP thing. Get past those labels, if you can, to consider the actual issues.
"Also, I hear that one of the original plaintiffs in this case went bankrupt on account of medical bills."
And what is your point?
"And, this is the day after 71 year old Dick Cheney got a heart, no doubt with the help of government paid insurance."
And what is your point? Cheney, as a former government employee, most likely has retirement medical benefits as part of his retirement package.
Do you have a problem with that? Should only people you like get the medical benefits they have earned?
"You already pay into a government approved food plan. It is called social security. You planning on opting out of that?"
You are really being obtuse here. Can't you do better than that and at least pretend you understand the subject being discussed?
66% want it (Obamacare) gone.
As long as they have their insurance.
One gentleman told me he wanted Obamacare gone. I lokked him square in the eye and said, you never got sick enough to lose your job, lost your health insurance because of it , and then could not buy insurance because of a pre=existing condition, have you?
He could not even look me in the eye. He looked away, before he said, "No."
Listen to the voice of experience, you do not want that to happen. you do not want to spend a year in bed, a year housebound and a year in rehab, with no insurance.
You do not want to buy private insurance so that atleast your wife has some coverage, and then have your insurance company rescind the policy, retroactively, 18 months laterso you get 18 months of medical bills thrown back in your lap, at the retail rate, not the isnsurors discounted rate, and all in one month.
I have multiple chronic diseases. No one is going to insure me, even though the diseases are readily controlled with medication. Without my meds, I am dead inside of six months, probably four.
You do not want to be me, without insurance. I will have insurance exactly as long as I am well enough to work, and the insurance company can collect from other people (and me) to pay for my meds.
But look at yourself and look at me and tell me who is healthier. Many people my age would not make a day working next to me in the field. But yet you want Obamacare gone.
You could be me, tomorrow. I know, because one day I was well and cocky, and the next day I was out of business. For seven straight months I never got out of bed, except to be hospitalized twice. I lost 70 pounds, and all I could do was moan occasionally.
And that was when I still had insurance through COBRA, a government mandate. And i was lucky, I bought disability insurance when I was young and healthy and had no thought of needing it.
"The Reason we are writing this consitituion is to establish a means to provide for agreement between the states, justice, domestic peace, international defence, the general welfare, and liberty."...
LOL!
Ahhh hydra did ya take the short bus to school or what?
How does that bizzare translation (there's your tenuous grip on reality rearing its ugly head again) provide for anything? Its just a preamble...
Now if you really want know where all the politicos have been falling down on the job as far as their oaths go you need go no farther than Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution...
"What Constitution? Nothing more is needed. See those words "General Welfare" in the Preamble? That's all we need to know, sez Hydra. The rest is just footnotes.
The mind boggles"...
I find it bizzare ron h that here we are in the 21st century with one of the finest information utilities ever invented and we still have people thinking they can baffle the rest of us with B.S....
The mind boggles indeed...
And why did I have disability insurance?
Because in my 20's I had a friend who suffered a head injury in a fall. After they peeled his face off and rebuilt his skull, he eventually woke up with the mental capability of a ten year old, and also a wife and two kids.
Last I heard, they were all being supported by her parents.
So, your silly analogy about burning a sinking boat aside, don't even think of trying to convince me that we don't need to do something, that the states have never been able to accomplish on their own. (That's where the part about forming a more perfect union comes in.)
And if you ever have a better plan than Obamacare, and the votes to get it through Congress, then I will be happy to listen.
My experience was so bad I think anything is an improvement, even Obamacare, but I'm sure it can be improved too.
But I am very, very certain that if repealing it and going back to where I came from is not an improvement. Show mw something thatis REAL and I'm all with you.
Just don't come at me like today in front of SCOTUS "Let them buy insurance when they need it."
And that clown gets paid what, $600 an hour for that?
"If the government has to take on more power and authority to protect people's property from a threat that did not exist when the constitution was written, so be it: the Preamble has all the authority they need to do so"...
So hydra you were not only an abysmal civics student but you floundered around and lost your way in history classes too?!?!
Dude you need to remember that in the late 18th century in what is now the United States that just about everything west of Philly was the wild, wild west...
People had to be a little more self-reliant about hanging onto their property back in those good old days...
Now a days we have to protect our property from government...
When government interfers in the market place it always works out so well...
Ron H-
My point is that the GOP is sniveling about the unconstitutionality of Obamacare.
Fine.
And never a peep about the USDA's unbridled power to force a farmer to grow a set amount of wheat on his own land, for his own consumption?
The pont is, the GOP seems mightily unconcerned about programs which limit competition in farming, by unconstitutional means. That goes on for decades, who cares?
But Obamacare....and let the hysteria begin.
For the record, I am against the USDA programs and Obamacare. But then I have a small streak of principles left in me, more than the GOP or the Dems.
"And if you ever have a better plan than Obamacare, and the votes to get it through Congress, then I will be happy to listen"...
Why should there be any plan at all that involves the government in any way, shape, or form hydra?
"My experience was so bad I think anything is an improvement, even Obamacare, but I'm sure it can be improved too"...
So what you really want hydra is for the government to steal for you from others so that in case there's another problem you'll be covered?
Maybe we need a Cuban styled health care system, eh?
"And never a peep about the USDA's unbridled power to force a farmer to grow a set amount of wheat on his own land, for his own consumption?"...
Really pseudo benny?
Hmmm, I know people who've farmed here in Missouri for going on fifty years and have never seen anyone or anything from the USDA...
Its just a preamble...
=================================
i walked to school, no bus. And the school had no plumbing, thank you........
The preamble sets forth the reason the rest of the document is written. Can I assume we agree on that, since others her have said as much?
OK then, any time the rest of the document proves to be insufficient to meet those goals, then it is simply insufficient. It is not a perfect document and it was not meant to cover every eventuality.
We can either change it or do a work around.
Most of the rest of it describes the structural set up of government. It tells you how the CEO and the Board, and the Directors are organized. What Qualifications thy must have, how to remove them, etc.
Except for the preamble, it says almost nothing about what business government should be in. The preamble coes that.
not until section nine, does it get around to limits on oongress. And the very first limitation on congess was that it could not abolish the importation of slaves until 1808.
That the right of habeus corpus, essential to basic liberty, may not be denied is second to allowing slaves to come in. The rest is pretty obvious issues of common sense, no ex post facto laws, etc.
Nowhere does it say the govenrmnet cannot require health insurance. It is one of those places that is simply insufficient, the fathers never thought to prohibit it.
What it does say the Congress can do is anything necessary and proper to carry out the fore going specific powers, plus whatever else is necessary to execute all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government, which one would assume includes the PREAMBLE which enumerates the purposes for which the government exists.
Really, do you have some reason to think the necesary and proper clause would not apply to the REASONS THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN IN THE FIRST PLACE?
That is a pretty simple question. I can't wait to hear the twisted logic you spring against the very purpose of the constitution, just to avoid Obamacare.
Finally, it is not until the amendments to the constitution do we get around to even considering HOW exactly government should go about doing the actual work set forth in the Preamble.
And the first thing they doois say whoops, we screwed up: the necesary and proper clause owould let them undo everything we fought for. So the first aqmendments prohibits the goverment from interfering with religion, speech, the press, and public assembly.
And we know that speech and assembly have since been restricted anyway, by the court.
Etc. etc. For the rest of the amendments, nonE of which prohibit the govenment from doing what is necessary and proper to fulfill the contract with the people WHICH IS LAID OUT IN THE PREAMBLE.
I know people who've farmed here in Missouri for going on fifty years and have never seen anyone or anything from the USDA...
=================================
I find that hard to believe.
They must be too stupid to know that the cooperative extension and the FSA are part of the USDA.
I have to believe that anyone farming for fifty years would ahve benefited some way from USDA money.
Why should there be any plan at all that involves the government in any way, shape, or form hydra?
================================
Because the present plan is not working and private enterprise can be trusted even less than the government can.
Because ordinary market forces are insufficient to deal with demands for services for events that are low in probabiloity and high in effect.
Because we will pay for those services anyway.
Because the government has a contract with its people laid out in the Preamble to improve the general welfare.
Because the nature of the services are necessarily "lumpy" to provide, but the probability of any one payer needing the services are approximately equal.
Because it is a good way to provide a little negative feed back to fatheads who think they don't want any government,until they need it.
the Preamble grants vague and limitless powers.
===============================
The preamble does not grant any powers, you moron, but it is pretty specific about the goals that what follows is to provide.
Part of what follows is the necessary and proper clause, which is deliberately vague about what is allowed in furtherance of those goals.
You have your interpretation, which says the Fathers didnt want the government to do damn near anything, because of their experience withthe king.
I have my interpretation which says the government can do pretty much what its people ask it to do in furtherance of the goals contained in the Preamble.
My interpretation is closer to what has actually happened since 1787.
"They must be too stupid to know that the cooperative extension and the FSA are part of the USDA"...
No hydra unlike yourself these people are actually self-reliant and know better what to do with their land than the federal or state government does...
"I have to believe that anyone farming for fifty years would ahve benefited some way from USDA money"...
Why its real simple hydra since you obviously have strong leech like tendencies you expect everyone else to have them also...
"Because the present plan is not working and private enterprise can be trusted even less than the government can"...
No suprise that you're wrong again hydra...
The present day health care market in this country is riddled with government interference in a very big way and we can thank the liberal swine that helped push LBJ's Great Society crapola through for today's disastrous situation...
Pandering to the parasites in order to buy votes is what the Great Society was and still is all about...
"Because ordinary market forces are insufficient to deal with demands for services for events that are low in probabiloity and high in effect"...
Says who and even if that is indeed factual is that a reason enough for government to steal from one group of people in order 'help' out another group of people?
"Because the government has a contract with its people laid out in the Preamble to improve the general welfare"...
LMAO! again... Where do you come up with such nonsense? Where does that all come from?
"Because it is a good way to provide a little negative feed back to fatheads who think they don't want any government,until they need it"...
The only reason they might need it is because parasites like you voted for politicos who would steal for you...
Maybe we need a Cuban styled health care system, eh?
=============================
You think you could find a redder herring than a communist one?
Why should there be any plan at all that involves the government in any way, shape, or form hydra?
=================================
Your response is that NO PLAN is a better plan than any plan all of this great nation can dream up?
What about that unlimited resource of intellectual capital and ingenuity?
Did you get dealt a short csrd there? No plan is the best you can come up with?
So hydra you were not only an abysmal civics student but you floundered around and lost your way in history classes too?!?!
===============================
Not so hot in history, and my school was too poor for philosophical exercises like civics. We just had something called government.
But I aced formal logic, math and statistical analysis, which you seem to have missed entirely.
You want to have some history that did not happen result in a government that does not exist. I conclude that the probability of that is vanishingly small, and the likleihood of your continuing bitterness and disppointment is high.
"The preamble sets forth the reason the rest of the document is written. Can I assume we agree on that, since others her have said as much?"...
No hydra you not assume that I would buy that nonsense at all...
A preamble is just that, a preamble...
"Except for the preamble, it says almost nothing about what business government should be in. The preamble coes that"...
Well hydra now you're being purposefully here with that line...
ron h, myself and others have told you time and again with links what the actual job constitutionally speaking of the federal government is and you pretend to that the information given you doesn't exist...
If you went to public school then you owe a lot of property owners money that you wasted on your education...
If the schools were that bad then you're the victim of a criminal conspiracy of sorts...
"Not so hot in history, and my school was too poor for philosophical exercises like civics. We just had something called government.
But I aced formal logic, math and statistical analysis, which you seem to have missed entirely"...
You know hydra I'm going fishing in the morning and I have a brand new pair of waders I should try on right now...
The BS is rising fast...
You didn't ace thing and I'm pretty much assured by the quality of your comments that only reason you passed out of high school was that the teachers and staff didn't want you around to infect the others...
I agree with your translation completely, Hydra, and I think everyone else here would too. The question becomes the rest of the document.
================================
Thank you, but as you will see below, there are those here who will never agree with me on anything, even whns i am agreeing with them.
The commerce clause gives the government the right to regulate commerce, the necessary and proper clause lets them do anything else.
None of this would have been agreed to without an express promise of the first ten corrections to the constitution.
The commerce in this case amounts to the need for services that are ubiquitous and pretty uniform at one level and lumpy and nonnuniform at the crisis level.
But the odds of any one person needing that high levrl care are pretty even, except for some skewness related mostly to poverty.
Juandos, in his pathological inumeracy considers paying for one persons services with another persons money to be stealing.
A better analogy is everyone paying the same price for a ticket in a lottery everyone hopes they will not be unfortunate enough to win.
The market system has proven itself unable to supply enough tickets, sell those tickets to everyone who needs them (even if they believe statistics dont apply in their corner of the world), or to price those tickets fairly. At times it has refused to pay out on the lottery, and even sometimes demands the tickets back, after you have won.
No one would stand for a crooked lottery like that, and they woulod demand government justice.
This constitutional malarkey is just hopeful cover. If it is held unconstitutional juandos will rejoice and claim the system worked as intended.
Otherwise the government is effed and Obamacare will still be illegal thievery no matter what the government or anyone else says.
These folks hate Obamacare viscerally, and nothing the supreme court does either way will change that. There is no logical argument, no economic argument, and no practical argument that will overcome an emotional religious, or dogmatic conviction.
People like juandos cna't think of a solution, because they do not want one, and could not recognize one if it happened because such a thing would cause disequilibrium in their preconceived and rigidly defined reality.
If juandos designed an airplane wing it would snap off in a second for lack of flexibility.
You know hydra I'm going fishing in the morning and I have a brand new pair of waders I should try on right now...
================================
Make sure to criss cross the staps and tie them real tight.
When you get in too deep and the waders fail in their purpose, you will still be warm and cozy, and you will be nitpicking that warranty as if it was the perfect constitution that will make everything all better.
I did a lot better with the History of science, and my present library has plenty of history books,they just say stuff you would not recognize.
You didn't ace thing and I'm pretty much assured by the quality of your comments that only reason you passed out of high school was that the teachers and staff didn't want you around to infect the others...
================================
You got that right. I learned over and over again that it does not pay to be smarter than the teacher, I just could not help myself.
One time I got a ninety-one on a test and the teacher was positively livid, apoplectic that she had to give me an A.
I had stopped after ninety-one questions, and that drove her crazy.
I'm pretty much assured by the quality of your comments that you have nothing to add to the conversation other than boring and not very clever insults.
Larry G @ 3:40
“we're still paying for the free riders..
...so we don't like ObamaCare as the answer but what do we want instead...that's politically supportable?”
_____________________
The question of what’s “politically supportable” depends a lot on who’s in the White House and the Congress. But it’s pretty hard to make the argument that Obamacare is “politically supportable”. And Obama most certainly did not have a mandate to do this. Furthermore, no one in the Congress even read the bill before voting on it.
And yes, there are “free riders”. But the fact of that does not make Obamacare Constitutional.
What I would like to see is for the Supreme Court to strike down the individual mandate (and preferably also strike down Obama's attempt to squeeze more money out of state governments).
If that is done, next year the Congress and the President (who may or may not be Obama) can take up the issue again. The result will be that whatever comes out of that process will probably reflect the will of the people more than the Obamacare monstrosity does.
"Your response is that NO PLAN is a better plan than any plan all of this great nation can dream up?"...
You you central planners are just so silly hydra and that's why my allusion to Cuban medical practices is NOT a red herring...
"What about that unlimited resource of intellectual capital and ingenuity?"...
What about resources and capital?
It doesn't come from government you know...
Government has to steal it to acquire it...
"Did you get dealt a short csrd there? No plan is the best you can come up with?"...
Again your absymal ignorance is nothing short of breath taking...
Plan?!?! Who needs a plan? That's what the 'free' market is all about...
"The commerce clause gives the government the right to regulate commerce, the necessary and proper clause lets them do anything else"...
The commerce clause is one of the most abused bits of the constitution and if you had done any homework you would know that hydra...
"The market system has proven itself unable to supply enough tickets blah, blah, blah"...
Liar...
"This constitutional malarkey is just hopeful cover"...
LOL!
What was that nonsense about your schooling again hydra?
"There is no logical argument, no economic argument, and no practical argument that will overcome an emotional religious, or dogmatic conviction"...
Hmmm, hydra are the whites of your eyes a beige to 'fecal' brown color right about now?
Because you're truly full of it...
I wonder if it stems from your inability to understand the constituion and simple economics?
"People like juandos cna't think of a solution, because they do not want one, blah, blah, blah"...
Let me repeat myself, liar...
Plan?!?! Only fools call for plans...
The best plan as it alway has been is a free and unfettered market place...
you're wrong again hydra...
---------------------------------
You are going to have to do better than that in order to convince me that may own direct experiences never actually happened.
What is your argument? That the present system is corrupted by government but it is so good we have to go back to it?
That a lumpy and discontiguous health care lottery is the same as any other supply and demand market?
Don't make me laugh.
Is your argument that when someone shows up at the emergency room with a life threatening but easily curable condition and no money that the govenment should do nothing and the market will cure him?
The reason we wind up with the intrusive govenment we have is to protect frome sociopathic boneheads who care about only one thing. And it almost does not matter what that one thing is; slavish devotion to it upsets the equilibrium for everyone.
Furthermore, no one in the Congress even read the bill before voting on it.
No one? Not one single person?
HOW CAN THE OPPONENTS HAVE ANY MORE CREDIBILITY ON THIS THAN THE PROPONENTS, THEN?
Jon M: "While the law may not violate the letter of the Constitution, it sure as Hell violates the spirit."
It would stretch the commerce clause beyond all recognition, but then it wouldn't be the first time.
The best plan as it alway has been is a free and unfettered market place...
================================
I SUPPOSE YOU CAN PROVE THAT BY SHOWING ME ONE. let me know when you find one.
An unfettered market place would be one in which anyone is free to cheat, and cause external costs.
You are theortically coorect in that eventually, people in the market would organize to identify and refuse to do business with the scoundrels. I get it.
In the meantime the market would be failing, and that "organiztion" would quickly resolve into something resembling government. you know, all that justice and domestic tranquility garbage.
Jon M: "btw, can anyone tell me how to embed a link into my comments?"
See tutorial here.
I can't show you actual HTML tag usage, or nothing will be visible.
Have fun.
juandos, you are a total blivot.
Just bring in any tangential thing and drop it on the table witha handful of completely gratuitous insults and no context whatsoever.
Not only is the food terrible, so is the food.
And you are oblivious to the humour in a red communist herring.
Who said anything about central planning? I'm perfectly OK with decentralized planning.
Random interaction is extremely good at two things. Creating friction and reaching the lowest energy state. But to accomplish anything meaningful, you need some kind of plan, in my ezperience.
juandos: "I find it bizzare ron h that here we are in the 21st century with one of the finest information utilities ever invented and we still have people thinking they can baffle the rest of us with B.S....
The mind boggles indeed..."
It's worse than that, some of them really believe what they write.
"And i was lucky, I bought disability insurance when I was young and healthy and had no thought of needing it."
If you thought you didn't think you would ever need it, you would not have bought it. Do you buy things for no rational reason?
"Last I heard, they were all being supported by her parents."
You see? Private charity works. Would rather have total strangers forced to care for them?
I, for one, would be happy to contribute to a fund to pay your medical expenses for the rest of your life if you would only shut up about your own personal medical problems and your experiences with insurance companies.
I'll bet I'm not alone.
"(That's where the part about forming a more perfect union comes in.)"
LOL!
You have no idea what that means. You make s**t up to suit your narrative.
Read some actual historical documents.
it sure as Hell violates the spirit."
How does it violate the spirit if it promotes the public welfare, according to the Preamble?
This is requiring people to buy lottery tickets in a game everyone will play whether they have a ticket or not.
The goal in this game is to get through life never having seen a doctor and die peacefully in your sleep. If you do that, you win and everyone else loses to one degree or another. If you are losing and you have a lottery ticket, then you lose later and maybe with less pain.
If you are losing and don't have a lottery ticket, well too bad, you will expire sooner and in pain. Maybe someone will take pity and give you their lottery ticket.
Just don't bother asking Juandos: he won't have a ticket and would not give it to you if he did.
Seriously though, if youlook at tit that way, there is no reason one lottery ticket should cost more than another, since the odds of needing it are more or less the same for everyone.
The present market does not work, and there is no evidence we can make it work better by controlling it less.
One day Che is Dead would be there, and the next he would not. Is that Constitutional?
=================================
That is going to happen to che constitution or not health care or not.
Look at the preamble. If omestic tranquility is increased for everone remaining after the elimination of che, then it met the GOALS for which the constitution was written.
But. if the result is that everyone else remaining is quaking in their boots that they will be next, then tranquilty is reduced.
It is all political, but that does not mean there isn't an objective truth out there. It is just that our political treasure detector is not sensitive enough to locate it in a timely manner.
"The commerce clause gives the government the right to regulate commerce, the necessary and proper clause lets them do anything else."
More nonsense! Read the actual words of the Constitution, and quit finding your own meaning.
The commerce clause: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
*Regulate* meant to make regular. The intent was to prevent tariffs and other imediments to smooth commerce between states. If you had some actual knowledge of history, you would know that.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
This clause authorizes Congress to make such laws as are necessary to carry out the previously listed powers.
For example, the Congress is authorized establish a navy. The "Necessary and Proper" clause in that context, authorizes Congress to spend the money necessary to make that happen, like building ships etc., or in the case of postal service, to build post offices and hire postal workers. Nothing more.
The Articles of Confederation had no such provision, so all money had to be allocated by the States for central government activity.
Necessary & Proper corrects that problem, nothing more.
Learn some history so you won't keep embarrassing yourself by making stuff up.
"And never a peep about the USDA's unbridled power to force a farmer to grow a set amount of wheat on his own land, for his own consumption?"..."
There were plenty of peeps when an earlier Agricultural Adjustment Act, that ended with the Supremes declaring it unconstitutional. when FDR threatened to pack the Court,with 3 more justices of his choosing, they lost their bowels and decided the second version if the AAA was perfectly legal.
It seems there were plenty of peeps about it at the time, you just don't remember them. Since The War, growing your own grain hasn't been an issue for USDA.
"We can either change it or do a work around."
If we can do a workaround, there's no reason to have a Constitution at all. Those in power can just do whatever they want. the reason to agree on a basic framework of law is to prevent just that from happening.
There is an amendment process, and any time enough people want to, they can change the Constitution or scrap it and create an entirely new one by means of a constitutional convention.
"Except for the preamble, it says almost nothing about what business government should be in. The preamble coes that."
You are confused. The government is in the "business" of protecting individual's rights. There is no authorization to mandate healthcare coverage, or redistribute income from one person to another, or 99% of what federal government now does. The Preamble lists a few reasons to have a government at all. There are no specific goals to be met, that is to be determined by the people, through their elected representatives, within the limits of the Constitution.
Per the 10th Amendment, any power not expressly granted to central government by the Constitution, such as the enumerated powers in A1 S8, are not available to the central government.
Read Section 8. Those 17 short statements are everything that Congress can do, and there is no more.
It's amazing that this isn't more clear to you.
Any thing else is the role of the States.
"Really, do you have some reason to think the necesary and proper clause would not apply to the REASONS THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN IN THE FIRST PLACE?"
Necessary & Proper authorizes Congress to carry out the enumerated powers listed just above that clause, as it clrearly states.
Haven't I already explained that?
"Because ordinary market forces are insufficient to deal with demands for services for events that are low in probabiloity and high in effect."
The concept is known as "insurance".
"Because we will pay for those services anyway."
Lame. That's a separate problem, and should be addressed as such.
"Because the government has a contract with its people laid out in the Preamble to improve the general welfare."
As always, you have this backwards. "We The People" intend to create a Constitution for the reasons listed. There is no contract. The central government is authorized to act in very limited and specific ways as an agent of the States, and of the people.
And the word is "promote", not "improve". There are so few words in the Constitution, every one of them is important, and has a specific meaning. Please get them right.
What you read, if in fact you have, is not a rough draft, or conference notes, but a finished document that a style committee spent a great deal of time and effort on, to ensure that the wording was exactly correct, and reflected the true intentions of the authors.
It's too bad you don't read more carefully.
"Because the nature of the services are necessarily "lumpy" to provide, but the probability of any one payer needing the services are approximately equal.Because it is a good way to provide a little negative feed back to fatheads who think they don't want any government,until they need it."
More meaningless nonsense. Do you need a nap or something?
"The preamble does not grant any powers, you moron, but it is pretty specific about the goals that what follows is to provide."
As is common with you, you misread my comment. Try again. You have the same trouble reading the actual Constitution, it seems.
"You have your interpretation, which says the Fathers didnt want the government to do damn near anything, because of their experience withthe king."
Look, at the time the Constitution was written there were 13 separate sovereign states, "countries", if you will, that had no particular desire or reason to hug one another except that some things could be handles more smoothly by a common agent. common defense and a common postal system were two of those things.
The states agreed to delegate some of those powers they each had to a common agent to facilitate that "more perfect union". That's all. That agent was to act only for the "general welfare" of the several states, and the people.
There was never any intent to give up all state power and become subservient to a national government, in fact that was what they feared most.
The states maintained their autonomous power in all but a few things they wanted to handle in common, which they spelled out precisely in the Federal Constitution.
What we have now is nothing like the original intent, and has grown ever larger, and at some point will be unsustainable, and will topple when the structure below it can no longer support it.
"Give me more government!" rasps Hydra
"You think you could find a redder herring than a communist one?"
That's exactly what you're asking for. Everybody must pay, everybody is covered. The details of how that's administered aren't important.
"I SUPPOSE YOU CAN PROVE THAT BY SHOWING ME ONE. let me know when you find one"...
Ahhh, your congital condition give you away hydra...
I've already shown you in previous comments with links for you to look at but apparently your congenital condition makes learning an impossibility for you...
If nothing else all you have to do is look at the health care field before and after government intervention...
That of course would necessitate you actually doing some real homework...
"An unfettered market place would be one in which anyone is free to cheat, and cause external costs"...
Caveat Emptor... Do you need someone to hold your hand all through life?
"Who said anything about central planning? I'm perfectly OK with decentralized planning"...
LMAO!
Apparently you do need someone to hold your hand all through life...
"Random interaction is extremely good at two things. Creating friction and reaching the lowest energy state. But to accomplish anything meaningful, you need some kind of plan, in my ezperience"...
Apparently your experiences are one long train mishaps, poor life choices, and the inability to get a grip on reality...
Then you have the gall to brag about it and whine that there should be a plan to cover that?!?!
That is just stunning!
"The goal in this game is to get through life never having seen a doctor and die peacefully in your sleep. If you do that, you win and everyone else loses to one degree or another. If you are losing and you have a lottery ticket, then you lose later and maybe with less pain"...
What was that line again hydra about excelling in logic when you were in school?
"Just don't bother asking Juandos: he won't have a ticket and would not give it to you if he did"...
Hmmm, well no argument there hydra but I'd sell that ticket...
Voila! A plan concocted by adhering to the priciples of a free market place...
How about that?!?!
"The present market does not work, and there is no evidence we can make it work better by controlling it less"...
You're absolutely right hydra, it doesn't work because government interference skews the results of a free exchange of goods and services for a portion of an individuals personal wealth...
"It's worse than that, some of them really believe what they write"...
Sad isn't it ron h?
Apparently the first lines in the homework link I gave hydra (making the huge assumption that he actually looked at it) must've been a cruel slap in the face for the hydra: “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.” -James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution 1788...
"There were plenty of peeps when an earlier Agricultural Adjustment Act, that ended with the Supremes declaring it unconstitutional. when FDR threatened to pack the Court,with 3 more justices of his choosing, they lost their bowels and decided the second version if the AAA was perfectly legal"...
You know ron h I think the problem here is that so few kids in schools over the last thirty or maybe more years have not been taught the factual history of that time FDR and his cronies trampled on the Constitution...
I wonder if hydra is a harsh critic of the artist Jon McNaughton?...:-)
looks to me like the administration knows it has lost on this one.
they are suddenly pushing ideas like "saving some of the provisions" but that is not going to happen.
most laws and contracts are written with a severability clause.
obamacare was conspicuously lacking one.
absent that, striking down one part ought to strike down the whole thing. that is how the law works.
i think this was deliberate from the start. those voting for it did not want to get into a situation where the purchase mandate fell away but the expenditure mandates remained.
of course, as we saw in GM, this administration has little respect for law, so it does not surprise me to see them seeking to go against it now.
One thing that I think is getting lost in this discussion is this: the constitutionality of the law doesn't depend on its goal, but its methods.
The discussion before the court is not whether or not the law is a good law or a bad law. It is not whether or not the government should take steps to ensure all Americans have health care. The question before the court is "are the steps proscribed by the law appropriate within the confines of the Constitution?"
That's what's getting lost in this entire debate, by pundits, politicians, and even ourselves. It's not the ends that matter, but the means.
"The discussion before the court is not whether or not the law is a good law or a bad law. It is not whether or not the government should take steps to ensure all Americans have health care. The question before the court is "are the steps proscribed by the law appropriate within the confines of the Constitution?""...
What's being discussed at the Supreme Court is just how much further can the commerce clause be used and abused...
juandos: "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.” -James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution 1788..."
It's sad that some people won't even believe the authors when they explain the meaning of what they wrote.
The Founders were apparently so stupid, they inadvertently included weasel words like "general welfare" and "necessary and proper" and subverted their own intentions.
"so few kids in schools over the last thirty or maybe more years have not been taught the factual history of that time FDR and his cronies trampled on the Constitution..."
I went to public school from 1950-1962, and I don't believe I learned any meaningful history. There were 3 great presidents: Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. I still believe some good things about the first one.
History is a difficult subject for children, as it involves the actions and speech of adults, something that's incomprehensible to them.
We should all be allowed to play in the yard until we are 21, then start going to school.
Hey, what's the big deal? Our parents are living longer, aren't they? They won't mind. Many are supporting adult children anyway.
Jon M" "The discussion before the court is not whether or not the law is a good law or a bad law...The question before the court is "are the steps proscribed by the law appropriate within the confines of the Constitution?"
Bingo.
"What's being discussed at the Supreme Court is just how much further can the commerce clause be used and abused..."
Juandos, I think you and Jon are both right... unfortunately, I think you may be more right.
We'll find out if it's constitutional for the government to tax us for personal goods and services that are fully supplied by 3rd, 4th and 5th parties.
morganovich: "of course, as we saw in GM, this administration has little respect for law, so it does not surprise me to see them seeking to go against it now."
Perhaps Obamacare 2.0 will become law after Obama threatens to pack the SCOTUS with 3 more justices of his choosing.
Perhaps Obamacare 2.0 will become law after Obama threatens to pack the SCOTUS with 3 more justices of his choosing
He'd have a hard time doing that. The oldest justices are mostly liberal.
"He'd have a hard time doing that. The oldest justices are mostly liberal"
My comment was a reference to FDR's
threat to change the composition of the Supreme Court by increasing the number of justices, to overcome resistance to New Deal legislation he promoted.
In particular, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 was miraculously found to be constitutional by the Supremes, although a previous version of the AAA had been found unconstitutional by the same Court.
This became known as "the switch in time that saved nine".
The AAA is the basis for Wickard vs Filburn.
Ah, my apologies, Ron. I had forgotten about that move by FDR.
BTW, Jon M., I posted a link to info on imbedding links in your comments.
It appears Prof. Perry's spam filter was upset by it.
Here is is again.
Thank you very much, Ron.
This comment has been removed by the author.
It's not the ends that matter, but the means.
===============================
The ends matter because that is the PURPOSE as defined in the Preamble.
We have already seen that the means can stretch the necesssary and proper clause and the commerce clause to a shape that will accomodate Santa Claus.
If the justices decide the ends matter, they will fabricate the means to fit.
If it is approved, no matter what the justices say, those opposed to obamacare will still be opposed. The only thing that might change their mind is a sudden and severe illness.
“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.” -James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution 1788...
Yeah, Well.
he laso said:
"If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained."
Plenty of people seem apprehensive about it now.
and that goes along with this:
"...the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens......"
"Who said anything about central planning? I'm perfectly OK with decentralized planning"...
LMAO!
==============================
At least you got the joke.
You never did offer any example but only continued to attempt to change the conversation.
Juandos:
What was the single most complicated task you ever completed without a plan?
Apparently your experiences are one long train mishaps, poor life choices, and the inability to get a grip on reality...
================================
And despite that I am more than a little successful.
If you call being struck down by chronic diseases a mishap or a poor life choice, maybe.
But I still have nothing but contempt for the slimeball insurance companies that reneged on their contracts.
As for my grip on reality I realized what a nice business model that was, so I did pretty well by buying their stock.
"The preamble does not grant any powers, you moron, but it is pretty specific about the goals that what follows is to provide."
As is common with you, you misread my comment. Try again. You have the same trouble reading the actual Constitution, it seems.
==============================
The part up tot the second comma is a direct quote, you moron. I did not misread it, just completed the thought for you.
Ahhh hydra why did I think you would finally see a 'gotcha' with the phrase, "general welfare"?
Well here you go, read James Madison's words in Federalist 41...
If you find that a bit of tough sledding then check out the following: Madison on the Meaning of the “General Welfare,” the “Purpose” of Enumerated Powers, and the “Definition” of Constitutional Government
"The ends matter because that is the PURPOSE as defined in the Preamble."
This has been explained to you in great detail already, and deserves no further time or effort.
"We have already seen that the means can stretch the necesssary and proper clause and the commerce clause to a shape that will accomodate Santa Claus."
Yes, we see that incredible stretching in Wickard vs Filburn, and Gonzales vs Raich. In those cases the Supremes got it wrong.
"If the justices decide the ends matter, they will fabricate the means to fit."
Do you mean they will make shit up like you do?
The job of the SCOTUS is to determine whether a law is constitutional. That's it. It isn't their job to decide if it's a good law or a bad law, only whether it's constitutional.
It isn't theirs to decide whether the means justify the end.
"What was the single most complicated task you ever completed without a plan?"...
Brain transplant on liberal hydra...
Took the useless gray matter out and replaced it with a single working amoeba and the liberal was a hundred times smarter than before...:-)
Just kidding...
No in all seriousness what have I done that you might consider complicated but was done without any prior planning?
Well maybe it was helping skipper 64 foot Swedish built sailing sloop from Ft. Lauderdale to Bermuda with a final destination being Nantucket, RI back in '97...
"If you call being struck down by chronic diseases a mishap or a poor life choice, maybe"...
Why yes you can hydra...
It all depends on how one acquired the disease in the first place doesn't it?
"But I still have nothing but contempt for the slimeball insurance companies that reneged on their contracts"...
Call me skeptical but it sounds like someone may not have read the fine print as thoroughly as was needed...
"As for my grip on reality I realized what a nice business model that was, so I did pretty well by buying their stock"...
So am I to take that to mean you're helping said insurance company rip off more customers by providing capital liquidity via stock purchase?
"Well here you go, read James Madison's words in Federalist 41..."
You already know he can't or won't read, but nice try.
Hydra sez: "Don't trouble me with actual meaning, I know what I want it to say. Whover is in power can pretty much do whatever they want, as long as they can say it's for the general welfare."
In recent decades this has worked pretty much in his favor, but he will hate it if ever those in power aren't his statist buddies.
There's no reason to have rule of law or a Constitution in Hydra's world. Those in government will always do what they want, and it will always be for the best, as "general welfare" is a very precise term, and has exactly the same meaning for everyone.
Can anybody answer one question about this law that I can't find an answer for ANYWHERE?
If this is being done through the IRS, and you have to pay or be penalized like any tax, doesn't that now carry a much higher penalty than just not paying the hospital? If this follows general rules, a twenty-something who chooses to do without will now face jail time instead of bad credit for a few years...correct?
"If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained."
Are you aware that Madison is referring to the Articles of Confederation here, and explaining that the new Constitution is almost exactly the same, except it has provisions to allow it to actually function, unlike the unwieldy Articles? One of those changes is the inclusion of "necessary and proper".
"Plenty of people seem apprehensive about it now."
Neither Madison nor anyone else at the time could imagine how badly commerce clause would be misread and its meaning subverted to political ends. Now we know better.
"and that goes along with this:"
"...the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens...""
- and the rest of the sentence:
""...and the latter will be no more bound than the States themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them."
Again, this is a reference to the articles of Confederation. Perhaps if you read those bits in context you will understand their actual meaning - or not.
"What was the single most complicated task you ever completed without a plan"
Hmm. Let's see.
Well, with my help my wife was able to create and assemble a living human being.
This couldn't have been just a random occurance, as she did it 3 times.
Mike: "Can anybody answer one question about this law that I can't find an answer for ANYWHERE?"
It's in those 2700 pages somewhere, but even Justice Scalia
considers reading that monstrosity cruel & unusual punishment.
but if you have a lot of time, this lady probably knows as much about it as anyone.
But if all goes well, we won't even have to worry about it.
Pretty good answer.
In context, the remarks were a sales pitch to convince the anti federalists to support the proposal.
"Don't worry, the federal government won't have that much power. Forget about that silly commerce clause."
This comment has been removed by the author.
The ends matter because that is the PURPOSE as defined in the Preamble.
If the ends were what mattered, then they can be easily accomplished. Ensure tranquility? Brutally suppress any insurrection or ban any art that may cause controversy. Provide for the general welfare? Just hand out checks to everyone and order all things be free. Common defense? Create a military/police state.
There are multiple ways to achieve the values ordained in the Preamble. But what the Supreme Court does is not decide whether or not a law is good or bad, but do the means used to achieve the law violate the limits imposed by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has never struck down a law because it was "bad" or upheld it because it was "good." The court deals specifically with procedure.
Consider some examples: United States v. Jones. Joes was a suspected drug kingpin and the police placed a GPS device on his car without a warrant to follow his movements. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that police actions violated Jones' 4th Amendment Right. This was not a ruling on whether drug law is good or bad, but the method in which it was executed.
Another one: Korematsu v. United States. The Court ruled the need to ensure domestic safety from espionage overruled the individual's rights in wartime. Again, the Court wasn't ruling on whether or not the law was good or bad, but whether it fell within the confines of the Constitution (the Court has since admitted it made a mistake in that ruling).
In fact, this concept goes all the way back to Marbury v. Madison.
This is a well established and well known concept with the Court. I didn't think there'd be anything controversial about this. Didn't they teach this stuff in Social Studies?
I never said it will always be for the best.
Quite the contrary.
What I have said is that for any given problem, there is an objective least cost solution.
Neither the conservative nor the liberal dogma is conducive to finding that answer.
Now look at the constitution as a whole, instead of a clause. The bulk of it sets out the branches and the seperation of THEIR powers. The requirements for office. It outlines the structure of government and says almost nothing about HOW the resulting government should fulfill the contract outlined in the preamble.
As we see, the justices are highly politicized. The final act in the process is political and the whole process is political. They will write some charade of an opinion that ties back to the commerce clause or the necessary clause, because that is what they do.
The precedent will make it easier or harder for the next task to pass.
But it says nothing about whether the task itself is more or less helpful, closer or farther from the objective best answer.
That part was left out of the constituting. You cannot fly an airplane with a feedback mechanism that votes every four years. It is insufficient.
The market, however, has constant and rapid feedback. That is the strong point. The weak point is that it does not and has not solved our problems, so we turn to government. Government will give us a political answer, eventually, not a financial one.
Which is why I contend we need market based regulation: more and faster feedback on more topics. In order for that to happen, we need the rights to buy and sell a lot more kinds of property: mjp uses the example of wild animals.
Obamacare may turn out to be worse ( more expensive) than what we now have: coverage denied, benefits not paid, and contracts broken, but it is not the constitution that will do that accounting. Neither will the conservatives, nor the liberals.
The report I heard was that the law provides no penalty for not paying the fee.
You supplied a few million sperm to improve the odds.
Now that you have a family, do you have a family plan, or will you have a random walk?
Ensure tranquility with brutal suppression?
That would be a case of the means destroying the end.
There is no tranquility that way.
So much for the rule of law as an answer.
The supreme court does not decide whether a law is good or bad, and neither does any other branch: that is the problem.
I think, and so do others here that they actually do. Hence the politicization of the court. They are constrained to couch their decision certain ways, but the end result is a law that furthers the goals of the preamble, or it doesn't.
There is almost no post hoc benefit analysis, except by partisan think tanks.
Remember, this whole thread is based on intrade, which is a nascent attempt to make a market on political events.
There is already a market out there. People will pay for clean air, and people will pay for making the air dirty.
You are a total jackass.
The causes of my diseases are as yet unknown. Anyone can get them at Any time. You could be next.
The company sold a policy offering partial payment for medical services. They did so after examining my wife's medical history. They later canceled the contract retroactively, without notice or negotiation, and refused any further contact with me. They refused to give a reason.
I agreed to pay them every month and they agreed to pay me if certain events occurred.
I kept my promise and they did not.
Under state law they can do that, under obamacare they cannot.
"What I have said is that for any given problem, there is an objective least cost solution."
No there isn't. Not all costs can be quantified, and all value is subjective.
It is the search for lower cost solutions that drives innovation and invention. If an objective least cost solution were found, all improvement would stop.
This is an example of an objective least cost solution. I have one exactly like it that is 25 years old, and I have pictures of welders using ones exactly like this 60-70 years ago. The design and function are so perfect for its intended use, it seems no improvement is possible.
"But it says nothing about whether the task itself is more or less helpful, closer or farther from the objective best answer."
That's correct. That's not the job of the SCOTUS
"The report I heard was that the law provides no penalty for not paying the fee."
Well, then there won't be any fees collected, will there.
Actually, since the fee is (oops I mean was going to be) collected by the IRS, I suspect it will incur (would have incurred) the same penalties as any other nonpayment to the IRS.
"You supplied a few million sperm to improve the odds."
No, just one. The rest were free riders.
"Now that you have a family, do you have a family plan, or will you have a random walk?"
That was a long time ago. I now have a random walk when I stand up only to find my leg has fallen asleep.
That is one way to put it which pretty well explains how screwed up the market is.
Those customers being ripped off have the same opportunity I have: it is a free market.
How many shares do you have to own such that the income covers the cost of. Your premium?
I'm not helping them rip Amy one off. They make that decision, and I vote against the CEO and the board. Who knows, maybe they will have a shareholders meeting in Florida.
Nantucket is in Massachusetts.
Everytime I make a voyage like that, I make a plan. Especially since the time I helped some clowns move a boat to Florida, got them offshore and discovered the only provisions consisted of Graham crackers and gin.
I bet the captain made plans and provision for your trip. Otherwise known as central planning.
How would you like to crew on my next transatlantic? 23 days of sparkling conversation.
"There is no tranquility that way."
Tranquility doesn't mean peaceful happiness.
A bank full of customers and employees lying on the floor at gunpoint may be tranquil.
"Remember, this whole thread is based on intrade, which is a nascent attempt to make a market on political events."
This thread is now based on the almost certain rejection of that monstrosity known as Obamacare.
The last 24hrs have seen hordes of cheering libertarians trying to teach you what the Constitution is and how the SCOTUS works. A seemingly impossible task.
"The supreme court does not decide whether a law is good or bad, and neither does any other branch: that is the problem."
You couldn't be blamed for believing that your elected representatives would be writing good laws only, if their mandate is to "promote the general welfare.
"There is almost no post hoc benefit analysis, except by partisan think tanks."
What form should that analysis take? Who should do it, and who should pay for it? Remember, all value is subjective.
Ever read William Buckley's " Airborne".
Hysterically funny.
"The company sold a policy offering partial payment for medical services. They did so after examining my wife's medical history. They later canceled the contract retroactively, without notice or negotiation, and refused any further contact with me. They refused to give a reason.
I agreed to pay them every month and they agreed to pay me if certain events occurred.
I kept my promise and they did not.
Under state law they can do that..."
Yes, that's what I would pay to never hear about again.
"..under obamacare they cannot."
I hope you have a plan B, it doesn't look good for Obamacare.
"How would you like to crew on my next transatlantic? 23 days of sparkling conversation."
No thanks, I already know all about your problems with insurance companies, and I know how much a Honda headlight costs.
"How would you like to crew on my next transatlantic? 23 days of sparkling conversation."
No thanks, I already know all about your problems with insurance companies, and I know how much a Honda headlight costs.
That's what we have markets for, isn't it?
Cap and trade is one way. Govt sets a limit on how much pollution a stream can carry. That is a known measurable amount. The level chosen may be subjective, but the level is known. The amount paid for use of the river sets the cash value at that level.
I am waiting for the Republicans to come up with plan B.
When obamacare fails, I expect my health stocks to jump.
If you never want to hear that story again, then do something to make that practice end. Otherwise that story will continue to happen thousands of times. You really do not want to hear that story from your grand daughter.
It really is a situation. Here we are in the Supreme court arguing over government health care the morning after Dick gets a new heart, courtesy of government paid health insurance, and one of the plaintiffs against the plan went bankrupt because of medica bills.
"If you never want to hear that story again, then do something to make that practice end. Otherwise that story will continue to happen thousands of times. You really do not want to hear that story from your grand daughter."
I don't want to hear it from you.
Plan B is up to you, not Republicans. Why do you expect others to do things for you?
"It really is a situation. Here we are in the Supreme court arguing over government health care the morning after Dick gets a new heart, courtesy of government paid health insurance..."
And why shouldn't he? As a retired government employee he may has benefits as part of his retirement package, like many others. So what?
Is it all retired government employees, or just Cheney you think is worth mentioning twice. If you are unhappy about government employee benefits the time to complain is before they are provided, not now.
"...and one of the plaintiffs against the plan went bankrupt because of medica bills."
And what does that have to do with anything?
[The Constitution} outlines the structure of government and says almost nothing about HOW the resulting government should fulfill the contract outlined in the preamble.
Huh?
Article I, Section 8 details Congressional Power
Article II, Section 2 details Presidential power
Article III, Section 2 details Judicial Power.
The 10th Amendment states that any power not given to the Federal government, nor prohibited to it by the states, is reserved to the states and the people.
In fact, the entire Bill of Rights details governmental power and its limits.
I'd say that's pretty specific.
"I'd say that's pretty specific."
Yes, absolutely.
Hydra doesn't think it's enough to create a body of law based on that framework, through our elected representatives. He believes the Constitution should already include that entire body of law, including directives like "pick up your socks", "eat your vegetables", and "don't hit your sister".
Ron,
Thanks for the link.
I've actually done my best at going through the bill and the website they set up and all I found were some mentions of horrifyingly vague penalties.
how does this law compare to the other countries that have universal health care?
Do those other countries who do have universal coverage have "better" law that implements it?
Do those other countries who do have universal coverage have "better" law that implements it?
Depends, what do you mean by "better"?
The discussion revolving round here is about the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Are you asking is there a better way to implement the reforms other than the mandate?
Globe and Mail: Health Insurers Rise On Hopes For Favorable Court Ruling
Looks like my strategy worked.
We will find out in June.
well.. sort of.
Do we have a much more restrictive Constitution than all other industrialized countries?
Their Constitutions did not seem to prevent them from implementing a wide variety of different kinds of programs - all of them - with universal access.
So does that ALSO mean that we have, by Constitution/Law, a less intrusive national level govt than those other countries?
I understand/appreciate the various perspectives about the US govt as judged in isolation.... unto itself.. but I also think about the US govt as compared to other industrialized, economically similar counties (as opposed to 3rd world/developing countries who are much more different.
All the other industrialized countries have universal healthcare ... allowed by their respective Constitutions.
We seem to be the only industrialized country with a Constitution that forbids it.
right?
The discussion revolving round here is about the constitutionality of the individual mandate.....
=================================
Not really. It is more like a pep rally urging the conservative justices to kill the bill.
This is the Earliest hope to Repeal Obamacare. The next one won't come until after the election.
There are two objective truth's to consider. the first is whether it is constitutional. No matter the discussion here, that is a decision the Justices will make and the answer will be known (although some will continue to afgue the point).
We may as well save the discussion and place our bets on INTRADE.
The second is whether it is an improvement over 50 different sets of regulations, some of which allow insurors to cancel coverage and duck out of signed contracts retroactively, etc etc.
If it is found unconstitutional we will never know, and the work of many people over several years will have been wasted once again.
If it is found constitutional and we discover there are problems, the legislature can try to improve it.
The legislature can also simply repeal it, in which case all the work including the Justices will be for nothing.
We will go back to square one and the GOP will declare a huge victory, with nothing to measure that victory against.
It seems to me they would be better off to let it go forward and then find some huge screw up, at which point they can say "See, we told you so."
Otherwise, every time there is some sad story about another family that went bankrupt or were denied a transplant they can't afford, that story is likely to end with a finger pointing at the GOP. There will also be a family story that gets passed down, making it unlikely the GOP will see any votes out of that family for a generation, or more.
Hydra doesn't think it's enough to create a body of law based on that framework, through our elected representatives. He believes the Constitution should already include that entire body of law, including directives like "pick up your socks", "eat your vegetables", and "don't hit your sister".
==================================
Where do you get this crap? I never said any such thing, or anything like it.
My only conclusion from you putting this forth is that you are not a truthful person and cannot be trusted.
I maintain there is an objective truth about whether a law is worth having, and we are not very good about discovering that truth.
But even without vull and exact costs determined there are ways to determine subjectively whether a law is worth having.
Laws that WE THINK should be permanent we can go to the considerable trouble of making a constitutional amendment for, in which case the body of law would be incorporated in the constitution.
This is probably a mistake, because you wind up with a constitution that is unwieldy.
Another way is to require every law to have a sunset provision. If the law is worth having, it will get passed again, probably with changes to address its failures.
A third way is to demand that a law establish measurable success criteria, with periodic review to see that they are met. If they are not met, then a sunset clause is triggered.
I'm of the opinion that no matter what the SCOTUS decides, it will not settle it.
It used to be (long ago) that people respected the SCOTUS decisions but now days more and more people believe the SCOTUS is just another partisan entity.
I also think that if it is upheld that it will supercharge the GOP campaign for President....
and if it fails...
the onus will be on the GOP to produce their "REPLACE" legislation or look like a bunch of lying hypocrites.
As more and more people find themselves in the group that cannot get affordable insurance, the numbers are going to be harder and harder to deny.
People are not looking for a free handout. They're simply looking for insurance that can protect them from bankruptcy.
More and more focus is going to be put on people who willingly forgo insurance and then show up at the ER or get a disease or injury they cannot afford and they try to get MedicAid.
The Irony here is that one of the biggest and most potent budget threats that directly contributes to the deficit and debt is - health care for those who cannot get or afford it.
At some point.. the cost of providing MedicAid and EMTALA is going to totally overwhelm us.
the only way out of this (other than universal care) is to deny free loaders health care when their number comes up.
Would the GOP pass a law like that?
Could they stay in office if they passed a law like that?
"Where do you get this crap? I never said any such thing, or anything like it."
You said, and I quote:
1. "...the Preamble has all the authority they need to do so." [government action]
2. "Except for the preamble, it says almost nothing about what business government should be in. The preamble coes that."
3. "But, if you can make the case that some action furthers one of those goals, there is no need to alter the rest of the document to achieve that end."
4. "Nowhere does it say the govenrmnet cannot require health insurance. It is one of those places that is simply insufficient, the fathers never thought to prohibit it."
I could go on, as there are more. You expect the Constitution to contain directives on how to "promote the general welfare", by containing all the the necessary rules to make that happen, but the Constitution is a framework. It only creates the tools to use in furthering that goal, not the specific actions. The role of the legislative branch, is to make law based on the will of the people.
You are asking that the entire body of law be included in the framework to fulfill the ideals in the Preamble, but that's not its purpose.
If that isn't what you meant, what do you think is missing from the Constitution?
"Nowhere does it say the govenrmnet cannot require health insurance. It is one of those places that is simply insufficient, the fathers never thought to prohibit it."
That one is particularly funny. The Founders didn't think to prohibit the government from requiring that we all stand on our heads and sing Yankee Doodle, either.
The things government CAN do, are listed. Anything else, it CANNOT do. Read the tenth amendment.
The commerce clause was written to promote free trade among the states, and has no authority to regulate individual commercial activity. I can't be required to buy something.
That is what is sending Obamacare down in flames all in one big fireball. Oh, what a beautiful sight.
The Constitution doesn't allow anything not prohibited, it prohibits anything not specifically allowed - as listed in A1 S8.
Article I, Section 8 details Congressional Power
Article II, Section 2 details Presidential power
Article III, Section 2 details Judicial Power
These deal with the structure of government and the division of government power. They say nothing about what government as a whole may do with that power.
It is not until Section Eight that the enumerated powers are listed, and they end up with the Necessary and Proper Clause, which pretty much means what ever else congress thinks is right and in furtherance of the Preamble.
Other than everything necessary and proper, the congress left the rest to the states. And finally in Section 10,they lmited even that.
Section Nine list some common sense limitation on Government: you must keep the books, can't throw people in jail without a hearing, no fair throwing people in jail or something that wasn't illegal yet, no titles of nobility: all perfectly resonable changes from the former government.
The non importation rule was a strictly political sop the to get the constitution passed, and the first example af a sunset clause.
Section 10 Says what the States cannot do.
The 10th Amendment states that any power not given to the Federal government, nor prohibited to it by the states, is reserved to the states and the people.
In fact, the entire Bill of Rights details governmental power and its limits.
All of the first ten amendments amount to corrections to the constitution. Things that were left out, and which could have been voided by the powers given to congress in the body of the document. It would never have been ratifed without the promise of immediate enactment of the Bill of Rights.
Madison argued in preparation for the amendments that government is instituted, and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; and that That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.
In other words, the people can have the government do as they damn well please and in order for that to happen government has or can get the authority to do what is Necessary and Proper.
Before incorpoarting the Amendments Madison warned about going too far in limiting the powers granted in the new constitution, lest the new constitution and government fail in the wrangling.
He did agree
"... to incorporate those provisions for the security of rights, against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents."
In other words, some obvious and basic stuff that might have been included in Section Nine, none of which seriously impinges on what the government can do with the powers it was given in the constitution.
We seem to be the only industrialized country with a Constitution that forbids it.
Well, no.
Our Constitution doesn't forbid universal health care.
There are many ways of achieving universal health care that are perfectly constitutional.
In fact, Erza Klein blogs about that today*
The objection is not to the notion of universal health care, and that is not the question the Court is considering. The question before the court is "Can the government compel individuals to enter a commercial market?"
I'm of the opinion that no matter what the SCOTUS decides, it will not settle it.
You are right, Larry. Just as Brown v. Board of Education didn't end the issue of racism (still alive and well) nor Dredd Scott resolve the issue of slavery. There will still be people who oppose this law no matter what.
Again, the role of the Court is not to say whether a law is good or bad but rather if it follows the Constitution.
*If Erza is not on your morning blog crawl, he absolutely has to be. Not to discount this blog, but Erza is one of the best out there.
"But even without vull and exact costs determined there are ways to determine subjectively whether a law is worth having."
But each individual's "subjectivity" is different.
"Laws that WE THINK should be permanent we can go to the considerable trouble of making a constitutional amendment for, in which case the body of law would be incorporated in the constitution."
And it should be "considerable trouble" to avoid as much as possible the tyranny of the majority.
"This is probably a mistake, because you wind up with a constitution that is unwieldy."
What is probably a mistake? Making DAMN sure that most people really want the amendment?
"Another way is to require every law to have a sunset provision. If the law is worth having, it will get passed again, probably with changes to address its failures."
I agree with this, 100%. The shorter the sunset period the better.
"A third way is to demand that a law establish measurable success criteria, with periodic review to see that they are met. If they are not met, then a sunset clause is triggered."
Measurement of effectiveness should be an important part of any renewal decision, yes. Laws that don't do what they intend, obviously shouldn't live on, and any law not important enough to defend and renew, can't be important.
Actually a sunset clause already exists to some extent, it's known as an election of new representatives, but seldom do laws get repealed.
Ron: None of those first four things are anything like the ideas you attributed to me,
And you are doing it again by speculationg on what you think I think the constitution should contain.
I expect the Constitution should contain exactly what it does contain.
It contains a preamble that states the purpose of what follows.
It describes the structure and organization of the government, with its three branches, and a bunch of precdural stuff like qualification
And finally it gets down to listing a few obvious things governemnt is allowed to do, fnally ending up with the Necessary and Proper clause, which as we have already seen, covers a multitude of sins, along with the commerce clause.
You think there is something in there that prohibits the government from making sure that the people have health insurance or health care,in furthance of the general welfare, in a way that does not allow some to prey on others.
I don't see anything in there that prevents the government from protecting my property by not allowing insurance companies to rege on their contracts.
I don't see anything in there that prevents the government from protecting my property by not allowing people to get health care for free, which others then have to pay for.
I don't see anything in there that prevents the government from demanding that insurors actually provide insurance.
And I don't see anything in there that prevents the government from responding to the insurors complaint that there is no "insurance" in a plan that only insures people whn they are sick.
But no where does that imply that I think the whole federal code ought to be embodied tn the constitution: that is not its job.
The constitution is right there on parchment. It says what it says. The problem comes when people start telling other people what they think it says.
My quotes are right up there fore anyone to read. They don't need you telling them they say what you think they say. Particularly when you are so entirley unrealistic to say that Hydra
"believes the Constitution should already include that entire body of law, including directives like "pick up your socks", "eat your vegetables", and "don't hit your sister".
It is one thing to wonder how much the fathers intended the government to regulate interstate commerce, and what that might mean 200 years later.
But that is a long way from deliberately distorting my assertion that the reason for all of what follows is in the (Tah Tah) Preamble, into an entirely fictional account about picking up socks.
My position is pretty simple.:
The preamble sets forth some goals, and the founding fathers were smart enough to make sure that what follows allows the government to pursue those goals.
If the Constitution does not give the power to pursue those goals, then what is the point? Do oyou really think those guys were that stpid?
I don't hear (very many) people complaining about the Patriot Act reducing some of our protections in furtherance of the goals of increasing domestic tranquility and defence.
Absent 9/11, I doubt such a thing could have been passed, but the facts on the ground changed our ideas about what is necessary and proper.
Can you imagine what George Washington and Madison and Adams would have said if the states demanded the right to create a class of contracts that business can back out of at will?
It wasn't an issue then, but now there are new facts on the ground that demand necessary and proper action in regulating commerce and ensuring due process, in an area in which the states have failed.
"These deal with the structure of government and the division of government power. They say nothing about what government as a whole may do with that power."
There is no "government as a whole". There are 3 separate branches, each with its own role, acting independently. It's important that you understand that, so you don't carelessly use phrases like "government as a whole".
"It is not until Section Eight that the enumerated powers are listed, and they end up with the Necessary and Proper Clause, which pretty much means what ever else congress thinks is right and in furtherance of the Preamble."
Your selective reading is making you look like an idiot, and is getting tedious.
[congress has the power to] "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
What is it that keeps you from understanding that this authorizes Congress to spend money to carry out the enumerated powers, and pay the expenses of the entire government including salaries.
The Articles of Confederation didn't include this provision, so the federal government had to go begging to the States for every dollar it spent. This is not a "do whatever you want" clause here. What a ridiculous notion.
Would you really want to be governed by a 535 person oligarchy with no apparent restraints on their power?
"Other than everything necessary and proper, the congress left the rest to the states. And finally in Section 10,they lmited even that."
You are a sad case. Do you understand that the Constitution was written by the States, and created a new federal government to act as their agent? Section 10 lists those powers they were assigning to that agent.
"Section Nine list some common sense limitation on Government: you must keep the books, can't throw people in jail without a hearing, no fair throwing people in jail or something that wasn't illegal yet, no titles of nobility: all perfectly resonable changes from the former government."
The "former government" was the one created by the Articles of Confederation, which contained similar language.
"The non importation rule was a strictly political sop the to get the constitution passed, and the first example af a sunset clause."
There was nothing sunsetted by this rule. If you could only comprehend what you read. Congress was forbidden to outlaw the slave trade in existing states before 1808.
"I'm of the opinion that no matter what the SCOTUS decides, it will not settle it."
Settle what? It will certainly settle that onerous Obamacare business.
"It used to be (long ago) that people respected the SCOTUS decisions but now days more and more people believe the SCOTUS is just another partisan entity."
They have, over the years, demonstrated that to be true in many cases. Rather than deciding what is Constitutional, they decide what is "the right thing to do". something Hydra is in favor of.
Hey hydra nice attempt and trying to describe your loony tunes interpretation of the constitution...
Well actually it wasn't that nice but good try (by your standards) anyway...
"the only way out of this (other than universal care) is to deny free loaders health care when their number comes up"
It isn't denying anyone healthcare, it's refusing to spend federal taxpayer's dollars on their medical treatment. A big difference.
"People are not looking for a free handout. They're simply looking for insurance that can protect them from bankruptcy."
But many aren't willing to pay for it, either because they are young and healthy and willing to take the risks, or they are unwilling to squeeze it out of their meager budget, or they have no problem forcing strangers to pay for their medical care.
"It isn't denying anyone healthcare, it's refusing to spend federal taxpayer's dollars on their medical treatment. A big difference"...
Well ron h there's a couple of problems I've seen in this thread so far...
The obvious one is that what is being argued in front of the Supreme Court, 'coerced contracts, can the commerce clause be pretzeled in such a fashion as to force people into what has for centuries been illegal and not just here in the US?
This point is obviously sailing over hydra's head...
The second point I've yet to see mentioned in this thread is that we've had 'free loaders' in the health care field since at least the inception of LBJ's Great Society crapola & extortion show...
I don't now how valid the following is but I'm sure we can say that a lot of money is spent/wasted on Medicaid: Total Medicaid program spending currently exceeds $339 billion per year, with the federal government paying approximately 57 percent of all costs and the states picking up the rest...
To me at least the whole ObamaCare is a scam since nothing has been said much about the continuation of Medicaid...
well.. let's assume the SCOTUS kills Obamacare....
I think it then will put pressure on those who opposed it to come up with a real alternative.
and I find the dialog with respect to "individual mandate" and "free loaders" pretty fascinating.
Will the REpublicans figure out a way to punish the free-loaders?
what could be done?
"All of the first ten amendments amount to corrections to the constitution. Things that were left out, and which could have been voided by the powers given to congress in the body of the document. It would never have been ratifed without the promise of immediate enactment of the Bill of Rights."
FAIL!
The Bill of Rights is not corrections or additions to the Constitution.
The argument over the Bill of Rights was whether it was really necessary to list individual rights, when they were already clearly understood by everyone alive at the time, and whether listing rights could somehow be construed as limiting them to those listed.
"Madison argued in preparation for the amendments that government is instituted, and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; and that That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution."
Yes, the Founders had a great respect for states rights. That changed after Lincoln got done shredding the Constitution and killing 650,000 people in the process. People can no longer change their government when it suits them, apparently. Just ask the Confederate States.
"In other words, the people can have the government do as they damn well please and in order for that to happen government has or can get the authority to do what is Necessary and Proper."
What bullshit. Are you just trolling me here?
"If the government can do this, what else can it do?”
One's imagination is the only limit, in time. For example, I'm sure there was a time when the thought of governments being able to enforce smoking bans in privately-owned establishments patronized by individuals of their own free will was laughable. Today it seems completely normal.
"You think there is something in there that prohibits the government from making sure that the people have health insurance or health care,in furthance of the general welfare, in a way that does not allow some to prey on others."
Yes. It's called the 10th Amendment. It says that if you don't see it expressly authorized here, then federal government can't do it. Your misunderstanding of the commerce clause and the terms "general welfare" and "necessary and proper" causes you a great deal of confusion.
The Founders themselves explained what their intentions were.
And, they didn't do such a poor job of creating a Constitution that they had to make corrections using the 1st ten amendments. Your lack of understanding is phenomenal.
"I don't see anything in there that prevents the government from protecting my property by not allowing insurance companies to rege on their contracts."
Fraud is a illegal at all times and everywhere. That's an issue for state courts.
You don't see anything in there authorizing Congress to make you buy anything, do you?
"I don't see anything in there that prevents the government from protecting my property by not allowing people to get health care for free, which others then have to pay for."
LOL! It's that very same government that has unconstitutionally given those free riders your money to pay their medical bills, dumdum. Fix the original problem, don't create others. You want government interference to fix government interference.
"I don't see anything in there that prevents the government from demanding that insurors actually provide insurance."
Again, the fraud thing. Contract law covers that. No federal government involvement needed.
Amd, please don't bore me with your story again.
"And I don't see anything in there that prevents the government from responding to the insurors complaint that there is no "insurance" in a plan that only insures people whn they are sick."
That doesn't even make sense.
"But no where does that imply that I think the whole federal code ought to be embodied tn the constitution: that is not its job."
Correct. But, you seem to think the Constitution by itself is all that's necessary to protect you from insurance companies, and that's not how it works.
"The constitution is right there on parchment. It says what it says. The problem comes when people start telling other people what they think it says."
LOL! I agree completely. Ask the Founders what it says. Does that mean you have given up your bizarre interpretations? Maybe you have found someone to explain it to you, who you trust.
"My quotes are right up there fore anyone to read. They don't need you telling them they say what you think they say. Particularly when you are so entirley unrealistic to say that Hydra"
What? have you not taken your meds yet?
"It is one thing to wonder how much the fathers intended the government to regulate interstate commerce, and what that might mean 200 years later."
No need to wonder, they explained it to us in the enormous amount of writing they did at that time. They intended free trade among the states, and a central agent for foreign trade and trade with the Indians. Period. Very limited like all the rest of it. Don't make more out of it than there is.
"Will the REpublicans figure out a way to punish the free-loaders?
what could be done?"
First thing, quit using federal taxpayer money to fund medical care for those who can't afford to pay for their own. It's not a federal issue.
I don't believe everyone on medicaid is a freeloader, as almost anyone will take something that's offered to them. That's human nature. But, a freeloader is only a freeloader if allowed to be.
How did people get medical treatment before government programs?
No, sick people didn't die in the street for lack of medical treatment any more often than they do now.
juandos: "The second point I've yet to see mentioned in this thread is that we've had 'free loaders' in the health care field since at least the inception of LBJ's Great Society crapola & extortion show..."
Yes. If you offer people free stuff, they will take it. So would I. If I could only get rid of all this damn income and assets, I too can qualify for medicaid. :)
The solution would seem to be to withdraw the free stuff, not add nightmarish amounts of complexity on top of it, that everybody must pay for.
"None of those first four things are anything like the ideas you attributed to me, "
Those four things indicate that you don't understand the Constitution.
You are absolutely wrong about the Bill of Rights. You would know that if you read a little bit about what the Founders themselves said about the disagreement.
You are absolutely wrong about the meaning of the commerce clause, the general welfare, and necessary and proper.
The Constitution is a limiting document, and doesn't contain any "do whatever you want" wording.
If you understood the Founders and the times they lived in that would be clear to you, and it could be, as it is one of the best documented periods in American history. Your insistence that you have a better understanding than the people who wrote it, is hilarious.
"I expect the Constitution should contain exactly what it does contain.
It contains a preamble that states the purpose of what follows.
It describes the structure and organization of the government, with its three branches, and a bunch of precdural stuff like qualification
And finally it gets down to listing a few obvious things governemnt is allowed to do, fnally ending up with the
Necessary and Proper clause, which as we have already seen, covers a multitude of sins, along with the commerce clause."
You were doing so well until the very end. too bad. The only sin involved is your pathetic failure to understand what you read.
"If the Constitution does not give the power to pursue those goals, then what is the point? Do oyou really think those guys were that stpid?"
They were far from stupid, and knew if they didn't limit government severely, it would grow out of control, as it has, in fact, done.
You are missing the whole point - bigtime.
Government doesn't pursue those goals, people do. The purpose of government isn't to "do things", but to protect individual rights and liberty so people can pursue their own ends. That is promoting the general welfare.
Government should be a servant, not a master.
"I don't hear (very many) people complaining about the Patriot Act reducing some of our protections in furtherance of the goals of increasing domestic tranquility and defence."
Wow. Then you really aren't listening.
"Absent 9/11, I doubt such a thing could have been passed, but the facts on the ground changed our ideas about what is necessary and proper."
You're funny. The patriot act is unconstitutional, and is neither necessary nor proper. It is an excuse to increase government power at the expense of our liberty.
You may or may not have noticed that no one has been tried under the provisions of this act, because Justice Dept. doesn't want it in Federal court where it will be found unconstitutional.
"Can you imagine what George Washington and Madison and Adams would have said if the states demanded the right to create a class of contracts that business can back out of at will?"
What a bizarre question. States do not create classes of contracts.
"It wasn't an issue then, but now there are new facts on the ground that demand necessary and proper action in regulating commerce and ensuring due process, in an area in which the states have failed"
Necessary and proper action by whom? What new facts?
larry g says: "I think it then will put pressure on those who opposed it to come up with a real alternative"...
Why should there be an alternative?
"and I find the dialog with respect to "individual mandate" and "free loaders" pretty fascinating.
Will the REpublicans figure out a way to punish the free-loaders?"...
Can you read? Is simple English beyond your paltry abilities to be informed?
We've had free loaders for a long time already and you would know that if you had read the comments above the one I'm answering...
BTW what makes you think Republicans are any less prone to vote buying than Democrats?
If that were the case the Republicans have had more than a few chances to dump or mitigate to some degree LBJ's 'pander to parasites' programs...
"The solution would seem to be to withdraw the free stuff, not add nightmarish amounts of complexity on top of it, that everybody must pay for"...
Yeah ron h, there doesn't seem any practical way to mitigate the waste and corruption of a nationalized system of health care... Its just to big and unwieldy...
The left_tards (and you know who you all are) just can't seem to get it through their heads that government intervention into the health care market place is the real root of the problem...
Consider the following regarding Ted Kennedy and HMOs: Ted Kennedy on HMOs:
Then and Now...
June 22, 2001
Its astounding ron h can't or won't grasp recent history...
juandos
"Consider the following regarding Ted Kennedy and HMOs:"
Yikes! A voice from the past. As I read the quotes from Kennedy I could hear that accent:
"As the authah of the firhst HMO bill evah to pass the Senate, I find this spreading suppowat for HMOs truly gratifying.
Post a Comment
<< Home