Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

So this is why Health Reform Unconstitutional?

Health Care Reform 2011

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,225 posts

Posted 08 January 2011 - 11:08 AM

I am not saying there may be other arguments against Health Reform, but I don't think this is one of them!

I was just surfing the net and came across this, I didn't know either of these Representatives in this video from c-span [Rep. Steve King (R-IA) & Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO)].

Edited because I forgot to put in the link:
http://tpmmuckraker....h_reform_is.php

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) argued that health insurance counts as interstate commerce, which means it should fall under Congress's constitutional powers.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) counter argument?

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) ""There have always been and likely will always be, babies that were born, lived and died within the jurisdictions of the individual states, who never cross a state line, access no health care and therefore do not impact interstate commerce. Therefore, to compel someone who fits that category to buy an insurance policy cannot be defined as within the confines of the intersate commeraces clause."

After another exchange:

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) "You find the baby that was not born in a hospital or with a midwife, who did not receive inoculations. You find that baby and identify them and I'll be happy to have that discussion."

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) "I hate to tell you but they show up in garbage cans around this country, sir."

.
.
.

I've goggle this Rep. Steve King, it seems his believes he is pro-life / anti-abortion. Great, lets just wait for them to show up in the trash, thanks. Instead of giving their mothers' (and potentially them) health care. Which may give them one less thing to worry about, and impact a few of their decisions.

Edited by sierraleone, 08 January 2011 - 11:23 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#2 Orpheus

Orpheus

    I'm not the boss of you!

  • Administrator
  • 17,841 posts

Posted 08 January 2011 - 11:43 AM

Interestingly, US Federal drug policy (which is generally supported by the same people who oppose health care reform) is based on Supreme Court precedents like Wickard v. Filburn [317 U.S. 111 (1942)] where a farmer was growing wheat for his own use, and the Feds limited the amount he could grow and ordered him to destroy the rest and pay a fine, claiming it was interstate commerce because it *could* be sold.

There are actually earlier precedents, dating to at least the 1920s, but their names don't occur to me. Wickard only came to mind because of a recent seminar on medical marijuana in various states, and is widely cited as making the Commerce Clause unlimited. It's why the Federal government won't allow the states to regulate the farming of marijuana for licensed in-state use or the home production of alcoholic beverages that will never leave your house.

#3 JadziaDax

JadziaDax

    E.I.'s resident insomniac

  • Islander
  • 2,612 posts

Posted 08 January 2011 - 11:37 PM

I believe the argument it's unconstitutional is, at it's core, because people don't think the government can force them to buy something. Commerce Clause or not.

Oh....and the nation kinda has this pull yourself up by your bootstrap, I don't care if you're poor/sick, it's not my problem and I'll only help out if I can get some feelgood or a tax break out of it.

But that's just my opinion. There is also the argument that it's unconstitutional because the constitution doesn't mention it.

BTW, Jared Polis is all kinds of awesome, if I may say so. He represents the district I grew up in so I follow what he does. I rather like him.

Edited by JadziaDax, 08 January 2011 - 11:42 PM.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup

#4 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 09 January 2011 - 12:35 AM

I just read in Telegraph that London has a bill on the table, to be voted, where they not only require people buy car insurance like many US states require it... but then, if they still do not comply, the authorities will grab your car and crush it!

now I know that's drivers and cars not health, but still..

(not only require you buy something, but if you don't , then take, take from you, take the car you bought, steal your property and crush it, aack.

:harper:
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#5 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,137 posts

Posted 09 January 2011 - 10:15 AM

Well the usual argument I hear in comparison to auto insurance is that you don't have to buy a car, and you don't have to drive.  While that isn't a practical option for many people depending on where they live and whatnot, practicality is a different question alltogether.  There's still an "opt out."

Of course, the insurance mandate still has opt-out provisions.  If you can convince the IRS you really can't afford healthcare, or it's against your religion, etc. you don't get the fine.  And even if you can't, the fine isn't astronomical--up to 2% of taxable income, which for most people means under $1,000.

#6 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 09 January 2011 - 01:46 PM

Hey, if we can't be forced to buy things, does that mean I get to opt-out of taxes that support education if I don't like public education, or roads, or the military, or police, or hospitals, or government workers' salaries?

I get why Americans aren't forced to buy many specific things (like I don't have to buy an American car, or keep a fire extinguisher in the house), but if we're being honest, we're forced to buy things all the time.  Or is it different because when I pay for education it doesn't necessarily benefit me directly?  

Having so many uninsured DOES hurt the majority though, even if not directly.  If someone who's uninsured has some emergency and gets a giant medical bill then it's the hospital that has to pay for it.  When that happens too often the hospitals REQUIRE more government aide or are forced to shut down.  Or you have someone who can't get insured because of a chronic condition, can't pay to get decent treatment, and so either is forced to use government programs and free clinics (and guess who pays for those...) or gets sub-par or no treatment, which means they can't work as well and decreases (or eliminates) their productivity, meaning they earn less, they pay less in taxes, and the government is still eating the cost.
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#7 Mary Rose

Mary Rose

    Charlie's Asthmatic Angel

  • Moderator
  • 22,372 posts

Posted 09 January 2011 - 03:57 PM

I find your first paragraph more than a little uncalled for.  Taxes are taxes and we're all forced to pay them for stuff.  We pay them and the government decides how it's spent.  We oftentimes have no say.  It's the way it is and for the most part we get that.

But,did you ever think that people are sick of that.? That this was the last straw or something.

Some of us don't think the government is all that trustworthy.  Some of us think that Democrat or Republican politicians are usually dirty liars who just want power.  And Obama isn't the Messiah come to save us all.  He's just another politician.

BTW, I'm neither a liberal or conservative, although I do admit to leaning more towards the conservative side.  That doesn't make me evil, in spite of what some liberals here might think.

Yes, I read the rest of your post.  Whatever good points you may have made, still your sarcasm of the first paragraph rubbed me the wrong way.  So, I'm responding to that.

Edited by Mary Rose, 09 January 2011 - 03:59 PM.

Mary Rose, Official Missionary for the Church of Beka angst.  Please join us for worship at the EI fanfic board.  Jill-- on what my name badge should say.
Proud Andromeda and Forever Knight fanfic writer
    Posted Image           Posted Image           Posted Image
Proud parent of thriving Beka and Tracy muses
Posted Image

#8 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 09 January 2011 - 06:23 PM

I'm sorry that I offended you with my sarcasm.  It partly stems from my own frustration lately with my own inability to get health care at all because I non-epileptic seizures - a disorder that is irritating but harmless and doesn't require doctor visits or any medication.  But because it is "unusual" I keep getting denied coverage, despite being otherwise healthy and fairly young.  I can only imagine what people with serious medical conditions have to go through in order to get care.

It also stems from the fact that I have to pay for things that I don't support at all.  Like the proposal for Kentucky to subsidize a theme park that teaches creationism to the tune of $35 million.  Or any of the abstinence-only sex ed courses that the government pays for.  But I believe that if there is anything the government should pay for it's taking care of its own people, and I dislike that it is often the same politicians who insist that I have to support their religion or their war or their way of doing things who most often turn around and claim that universal healthcare is unconstitutional, wrong, and morally questionable.

Regardless I shouldn't have phrased my response in such a manner.  If anything I think we have more in common than not, and I certainly don't think you're evil.

I am also sick to death of being called a leftist extremist because I support healthcare for everyone (this happens far more IRL than here).  Actually, I'm sick of both sides calling the other a bunch of extremists when they don't agree.  I support Obama overall, but he's human and makes mistakes, and I'm probably going to stop listening to anyone who claims otherwise be they pro-Obama or not.
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#9 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 10 January 2011 - 12:02 AM

There's a difference between contributing to general public works like public education and being forced to purchase things from private vendors.  I would have thought that would be obvious.
Posted Image

#10 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 10 January 2011 - 09:33 AM

View PostBad Wolf, on 10 January 2011 - 12:02 AM, said:

There's a difference between contributing to general public works like public education and being forced to purchase things from private vendors.  I would have thought that would be obvious.

Well I guess us dummies didn't get the "obvious."  :p  Please exercise a little respect.

Public Option!  If everyone needs to be insured and they do, freakin' public option!

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#11 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 10 January 2011 - 12:46 PM

I was talking to Nikcara.

I also want a public option and REFORM.

But it's STILL unconstitutional to tell me that I HAVE to BUY health insurance "or else".
Posted Image

#12 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 10 January 2011 - 01:55 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on 10 January 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

I was talking to Nikcara.

I also want a public option and REFORM.

But it's STILL unconstitutional to tell me that I HAVE to BUY health insurance "or else".

I think that you are probably right about being forced to buy something being unconstitutional.
But it's hard to tell anymore when you're told by a Supreme Court Justice that the 14th
Amendment doesn't cover women or gay people.   :unsure:

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#13 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 10 January 2011 - 03:07 PM

^  The point on the 14th amendment is not who it covers but what it can do in terms of regulation of private persons or businesses as opposed to overturning laws or responding to other things identified as "state action".
Posted Image

#14 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,137 posts

Posted 10 January 2011 - 04:43 PM

Sweeping reform to both the Constitution and the regulation of lawyers in the US is something that has been needed for a long time. It has been far too easy for far too long for any nutbar and/or interfering nit to meddle and make mischief. All some jackass has to do is vacuously bellow "unconstitutional!", and whether the objection is misguided, apt, or a partisan attempt to muck with something they have no business sticking their noses into, all eyes then turn to the Constitution, an outdated bit of folderol that all too often contains nothing useful in terms of mounting a defense.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#15 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,032 posts

Posted 10 January 2011 - 07:53 PM

View Postgsmonks, on 10 January 2011 - 04:43 PM, said:

Sweeping reform to both the Constitution and the regulation of lawyers in the US is something that has been needed for a long time. It has been far too easy for far too long for any nutbar and/or interfering nit to meddle and make mischief. All some jackass has to do is vacuously bellow "unconstitutional!", and whether the objection is misguided, apt, or a partisan attempt to muck with something they have no business sticking their noses into, all eyes then turn to the Constitution, an outdated bit of folderol that all too often contains nothing useful in terms of mounting a defense.

While I agree that reforming the constitution desperately needs doing, I disagree that all eyes turn to the Constitution.  SOME do, but for the most part, the Constitution is just ignored.

#16 psycaz

psycaz
  • Islander
  • 350 posts

Posted 10 January 2011 - 09:22 PM

View Postgsmonks, on 10 January 2011 - 04:43 PM, said:

Sweeping reform to both the Constitution and the regulation of lawyers in the US is something that has been needed for a long time. It has been far too easy for far too long for any nutbar and/or interfering nit to meddle and make mischief. All some jackass has to do is vacuously bellow "unconstitutional!", and whether the objection is misguided, apt, or a partisan attempt to muck with something they have no business sticking their noses into, all eyes then turn to the Constitution, an outdated bit of folderol that all too often contains nothing useful in terms of mounting a defense.

Wait, we should ignore one of the founding documents of this country just because it doesn't say what some want it to?

Here is an idea, CHANGE IT. It does contain a method to do so. I believe it has been done once or twice too.

Sorry that it becomes a hinderance to some and how THEY feel this country should go. That is why it is there. So the country goes the way the citizenry wants to go.

Of the People, by the People, for the People... not in the Constitution, but the words still ring true.

#17 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 10 January 2011 - 09:29 PM

I absolutely DISAGREE with the idea of "reforming" the Constitution.  It's just fine.  I can just imagine what would happen if God forbid there were something like a Constitutional Convention today.

Man.  There wouldn't BE a bill of rights.
Posted Image

#18 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,137 posts

Posted 11 January 2011 - 10:00 AM

View Postpsycaz, on 10 January 2011 - 09:22 PM, said:

View Postgsmonks, on 10 January 2011 - 04:43 PM, said:

Sweeping reform to both the Constitution and the regulation of lawyers in the US is something that has been needed for a long time. It has been far too easy for far too long for any nutbar and/or interfering nit to meddle and make mischief. All some jackass has to do is vacuously bellow "unconstitutional!", and whether the objection is misguided, apt, or a partisan attempt to muck with something they have no business sticking their noses into, all eyes then turn to the Constitution, an outdated bit of folderol that all too often contains nothing useful in terms of mounting a defense.

Wait, we should ignore one of the founding documents of this country just because it doesn't say what some want it to?

Here is an idea, CHANGE IT. It does contain a method to do so. I believe it has been done once or twice too.

Sorry that it becomes a hinderance to some and how THEY feel this country should go. That is why it is there. So the country goes the way the citizenry wants to go.

Of the People, by the People, for the People... not in the Constitution, but the words still ring true.

If you read my post, you'll see that I said "reform", not "ignore".

The problem with the Constitution has its parallel in the problem with lawyers. In terms of the Constitution, it's what's not in there that's the problem. A challenge comes up on a constitutional basis, the Constitution backs up some nutbar, holding up a perfectly good law or piece of legislation, and the process of good governance gets hijacked. This has been a HUGE problem for a very long time, that people have been throwing sand in the gears of the process of governance. In legal terms, lawyers are able to drag ridiculous matters before the courts and hose people and companies out of obscene amounts of money. The US has yet to regulate the doings of lawyers to put a stop to this type of nonsense. It has to be remembered that lawyering is a for-profit business with its own self-interest at heart.

The Of the people, by the people, for the people thing is nothing more or less than a few pretty words strung together. Those words are not and never have been an accurate reflection of reality.

Edited by gsmonks, 11 January 2011 - 10:07 AM.

Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#19 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,032 posts

Posted 11 January 2011 - 10:17 AM

View PostBad Wolf, on 10 January 2011 - 09:29 PM, said:

I absolutely DISAGREE with the idea of "reforming" the Constitution.  It's just fine.  I can just imagine what would happen if God forbid there were something like a Constitutional Convention today.

Man.  There wouldn't BE a bill of rights.

That would require 3/4 of the states to vote to repeal the bill of rights.  If the people are that stupid, we're all f**ked no matter what we do.

#20 psycaz

psycaz
  • Islander
  • 350 posts

Posted 11 January 2011 - 01:02 PM

View Postgsmonks, on 11 January 2011 - 10:00 AM, said:

View Postpsycaz, on 10 January 2011 - 09:22 PM, said:

View Postgsmonks, on 10 January 2011 - 04:43 PM, said:

Sweeping reform to both the Constitution and the regulation of lawyers in the US is something that has been needed for a long time. It has been far too easy for far too long for any nutbar and/or interfering nit to meddle and make mischief. All some jackass has to do is vacuously bellow "unconstitutional!", and whether the objection is misguided, apt, or a partisan attempt to muck with something they have no business sticking their noses into, all eyes then turn to the Constitution, an outdated bit of folderol that all too often contains nothing useful in terms of mounting a defense.

Wait, we should ignore one of the founding documents of this country just because it doesn't say what some want it to?

Here is an idea, CHANGE IT. It does contain a method to do so. I believe it has been done once or twice too.

Sorry that it becomes a hinderance to some and how THEY feel this country should go. That is why it is there. So the country goes the way the citizenry wants to go.

Of the People, by the People, for the People... not in the Constitution, but the words still ring true.

If you read my post, you'll see that I said "reform", not "ignore".

The problem with the Constitution has its parallel in the problem with lawyers. In terms of the Constitution, it's what's not in there that's the problem. A challenge comes up on a constitutional basis, the Constitution backs up some nutbar, holding up a perfectly good law or piece of legislation, and the process of good governance gets hijacked. This has been a HUGE problem for a very long time, that people have been throwing sand in the gears of the process of governance. In legal terms, lawyers are able to drag ridiculous matters before the courts and hose people and companies out of obscene amounts of money. The US has yet to regulate the doings of lawyers to put a stop to this type of nonsense. It has to be remembered that lawyering is a for-profit business with its own self-interest at heart.

The Of the people, by the people, for the people thing is nothing more or less than a few pretty words strung together. Those words are not and never have been an accurate reflection of reality.

Those words still mean everything.

WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who still elect these officials who are in office. I have yet to see anyone permanently appointed to Congress and/or President.

If they aren't serving their constinuency, then they should be voted out of office and replaced with folks who do.

It is not their fault that some are sheep and vote solely on the name or what they are told to think.

It is imcumbent upon each of us to think for ourselves. Research the issues and candidates for ourselves, vote for ourselves.

If we don't do that then we only have OURSELVES to blame.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Health Care, Reform, 2011

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users