The left is paying for support of Obamas healthcare program(actual proof inside)

[kiff]

Coming from the person who's all rah rah STATE'S RIGHTS!

state's rights means I think there should be insurance monopolies? ummm.... ok....

Don't mind my heavy handed sarcasm, folks, it's late and this thread is hilarious. You ever notice how many people online are constitutional scholars? Apparently having no legal training and a wiki understanding of the document in question is the highest authority.

Jason, you usually think through your statements a little better, but hey, I've made some dumb posts too

anyways, for all the liberal "constitutional scholars" that think they can interpret the whole "general welfare" thing:

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792


"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

 

[Phopojijo]

state's rights means I think there should be insurance monopolies? ummm.... ok....

I *think* what he means is that you're removing power from the states to control insurance companies that do not have offices in their state... which is ironic because that would shift its governance from the State to the Federal government...

 

[dragonfliet]

state's rights means I think there should be insurance monopolies? ummm.... ok....

No, because a belief in the State's right to dictate it's own laws without the federal government having oversight precludes the federal government being able to open up interstate health care.

It is silly state laws that keep interstate health care from happening and which allows for near monopolies in states when there is no actual, logical reason that other companies couldn't compete with them. To open up interstate competition would mean the federal government trumping the stupid state laws and enacting a more comprehensive and logical regulation (which I'm all for).

~Jason

 

[kiff]

No, because a belief in the State's right to dictate it's own laws without the federal government having oversight precludes the federal government being able to open up interstate health care.

That's assuming I believe that state's rights necessarily means they should be isolationists. I've never said that and I don't believe that.

It is silly state laws that keep interstate health care from happening and which allows for near monopolies in states when there is no actual, logical reason that other companies couldn't compete with them.

It should be obvious that not every insurance company would want (or even be able) to have a branch in every single state.

To open up interstate competition would mean the federal government trumping the stupid state laws and enacting a more comprehensive and logical regulation (which I'm all for).

How would using the commerce clause AS INTENDED be trumping "stupid" state laws? It's not...

Having intersate commerce regulated by the feds AND having intrastate commerce being managed by the states is 100% constitutional and the exact purpose of federalism.

This all is really a red herring and you're taking my stance(s) completely out of context.... I've even stated that I would be for an interstate HIE, as long as the states can have their own insurance regulations. I'm not against the feds from having ANY power. I'm against them having complete domination over the states and leaving them no alternatives.

 

[dragonfliet]

It should be obvious that not every insurance company would want (or even be able) to have a branch in every single state.

...

How would using the commerce clause AS INTENDED be trumping "stupid" state laws? It's not...

This is where you're being all contradictory. You see, in order to promote interstate health care, the silly, stupid laws that individual states have enacted (see having a branch located within that state ie: why many states have little competition) need to be overridden by the federal government. As it is, these laws are the exact reason why companies aren't in more states.

How do you propose to increase competition and open up interstate healthcare without removing such stupid, worthless, state-specific laws?

This is why I am pointing out how it is amusing for someone who is all pro-state's rights to be trumpeting moves by house and senate members. It is a contradiction by necessity. One thing cannot happen without the other being shut down (ie: state's rights=no real interstate health care OR interstate health care=blow to state's rights)

~Jason

 

[Forgetful]

Hope everyone in Canada had a nice long weekend.

Question: Why does everyone in the states seem to make no distinction between the Bush administration who was grossly abusing your country to the current administration who hasn't even really got a foot hold to do anything yet?

 

[Sir_Brizz]

This is why I am pointing out how it is amusing for someone who is all pro-state's rights to be trumpeting moves by house and senate members. It is a contradiction by necessity. One thing cannot happen without the other being shut down (ie: state's rights=no real interstate health care OR interstate health care=blow to state's rights)

You REALLY don't understand the commerce clause, do you?

You can have interstate commerce WITHOUT damaging state's rights at all. Why do you think they have these laws that you consider silly and stupid? What do you think these laws even are?

 

[dragonfliet]

You REALLY don't understand the commerce clause, do you?

You can have interstate commerce WITHOUT damaging state's rights at all. Why do you think they have these laws that you consider silly and stupid? What do you think these laws even are?

No, you REALLY don't understand the point. The reason that there isn't more options of healthcare from state to state is that states require (among other restrictive state-specific regulations and requirements) a branch office in the state that they are practicing in. For many insurers, this is too costly and cumbersome a measure, and so they limit the states in which they cover patients. How do you promote more interstate competition without somehow overrunning these laws?

Come on Brizz, this one has been repeated multiple times. So which wins? The state's right to dictate the requirements and regulations or the federal government's right to regulate interstate commerce?

I vote the federal government, but I'm curious how you simultaneously maintain state rights while getting more interstate competition. Come on guys, show me.

~Jason

 

[hal]

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1134792

 

[Sir_Brizz]

No, you REALLY don't understand the point. The reason that there isn't more options of healthcare from state to state is that states require (among other restrictive state-specific regulations and requirements) a branch office in the state that they are practicing in. For many insurers, this is too costly and cumbersome a measure, and so they limit the states in which they cover patients. How do you promote more interstate competition without somehow overrunning these laws?

Come on Brizz, this one has been repeated multiple times. So which wins? The state's right to dictate the requirements and regulations or the federal government's right to regulate interstate commerce?

I vote the federal government, but I'm curious how you simultaneously maintain state rights while getting more interstate competition. Come on guys, show me.

You're ignoring why these laws exist in the first place to support your anti-state's rights opinions.

They don't exist to limit interstate commerce, they exist to protect a state's interest in commerce that happens within their borders. Hence why you could have a federal system that still protects those interest (in effect, does not even TOUCH state's rights) [doh, hal beat me with a way better source ]

Still, interstate health insurance commerce could happen without much federal involvement. Auto insurance, for example, is not regulated by the federal government at all, but somehow they manage to keep costs down.

 

[kiff]

You're ignoring why these laws exist in the first place to support your anti-state's rights opinions.

They don't exist to limit interstate commerce, they exist to protect a state's interest in commerce that happens within their borders.

exactly... I'm not sure what the confusion is here

but, from what I understand of the current situation (and I don't claim to be an expert)...
McCarran-Ferguson Act basically created the problem when the SC ruled interstate insurance was breaking anti-trust laws. obviously that was a mistake, at least for today's scenario, since it has stifled competition

http://healthcare.ncpa.org/commenta...n-the-individual-health-insurance-marketplace

 

[dragonfliet]

You guys are still missing the point. The link that Hal posted is great on the surface, except all it does is provide a single license to sell. Of course, the insurers still have to meet the individual state's specific requirements, so it is, in effect, little of a change. It's a move in the right direction, since instead of numerous state licenses there is only the single license, but none of the other crap ass laws are overcome (a point the article concedes in the conclusion). Additionally, even as halfass as this bill is, it still requires a creation of federal regulation.

I'm not saying state health insurance laws exist TO limit interstate commerce, but they DO limit interstate commerce. The requirements for specific branches and the meeting of (nearly) randomly assigned minimum coverages is simply hurting consumers.

Auto insurance, Brizz, is also not nearly as heavily regulated as health insurance.

~Jason

Edit: Kiff, you misunderstood. The SC said that insurance COULD be regulated by the federal government under the commerce clause. As a response to that ruling, congress passed this terrible, TERRIBLE law which essentially kicked it over to the states and said that as long as the state was regulating it, anti-trust laws were moot.

 

[kiff]

The link that Hal posted is great on the surface, except all it does is provide a single license to sell. Of course, the insurers still have to meet the individual state's specific requirements, so it is, in effect, little of a change. It's a move in the right direction
...
Auto insurance, Brizz, is also not nearly as heavily regulated as health insurance.
....
Edit: Kiff, you misunderstood. The SC said that insurance COULD be regulated by the federal government under the commerce clause. As a response to that ruling, congress passed this terrible, TERRIBLE law which essentially kicked it over to the states and said that as long as the state was regulating it, anti-trust laws were moot.

yea, I was reading about the other one too (United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association).

Either way, the whole thing is over-regulated and things need to be simplified... it can be done constitutionally and improve competition. Sure, the proposed bill(s) might not be enough, but a true reform in this area, to simplify regulations, would help wonders, imo

 

[dragonfliet]

true reform in this area, to simplify regulations, would help wonders, imo

No arguments from me on that point.

 

[hal]

You guys are still missing the point. The link that Hal posted is great on the surface, except all it does is provide a single license to sell. Of course, the insurers still have to meet the individual state's specific requirements, so it is, in effect, little of a change. It's a move in the right direction, since instead of numerous state licenses there is only the single license, but none of the other crap ass laws are overcome (a point the article concedes in the conclusion). Additionally, even as halfass as this bill is, it still requires a creation of federal regulation.

The Fed is constitutionally authorized to provide a framework for free inter-state trade. I think the proposal does a decent job of that while still leaving the states in charge overall.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

Such as...?

every one that tried.

We shouldn't just show people the door when they don't like things that are going on.

I only said that in regards to your attitude about the situation.
your entire slant is based on the theory that government can do no good.
so maybe you'd prefer anarchy somewhere else.

Again, what kind of argument is this? "It has happened before so just let it continue happening"? That doesn't make any sense! If people don't wake up until the last second, they should STILL let their voice of dissent be heard. If not, then what kind of government do we have?

hyperbole much?
I just pointed out that the position we are in right now (in which gov't has, over time, continually taken on social responsibilities) is a direct result of our democracy in action.

And yet Obama's defense spending is even higher than Bush's.... hmmm...... If you expected that the next President wouldn't be a big military man, you are so far completely wrong.

you're an idiot if you believe it's that easy to just pull-out of a war after it's been going on for this long.
Obama ran on the platform of withdrawal...
but it's MUCH easier said than done.

you know what platform little Bushy ran on?
"There will be no nation building."
that is the THE lie of the decade.

it's Bush who put us in that useless and wasteful situation to begin with. Bush policy is what has certain operations and contracts in process which cannot be severed at a moments notice.
but I digress.

I wasn't implying this was all Obama's fault.

well, isn't that respectful of you

But we shouldn't just sit idly by and continue letting him grow the federal government, increase federal spending

fair points for argument.
but then you say:

throw the future of generations of Americans down the toilet

which is not a fair point for argument.
no one knows what the outcome of this entire sh*t storm (the whole financial crisis, bailouts, etc) will be. there's no sound way to gauge our effectiveness at this point, not for at least 10 years out. the impact it will have on future generations is for anyone to guess.

every generation adds on some extra spending for the next to deal with. it's not like it ever goes down.

If someone was coming to bulldoze your house...

but no one is coming to bulldoze my house.

You take issue with that statement?

everyone likes to keep their money and choose what they spend it on.
you didn't say anything profound.

I know, I know. to you, it's all highway robbery. the less gov't the better, and all that jazz. what have they done for me lately? etc, etc.
this is just where we agree to disagree on the fundamental debate concerning government's responsibility to its society.

Have you seen any reform in the last 30 years?

uhh...

(I realize there have been reforms for many social programs...

oh hey, thanks for correcting yourself before I had to do it.
whether or not they "helped" is not only irrelevant to the original point, but is up for debate itself.

 

[kiff]

^ jeez jack, stop with the quote overload!

 

[Sir_Brizz]

every one that tried.
I only said that in regards to your attitude about the situation.
your entire slant is based on the theory that government can do no good.
so maybe you'd prefer anarchy somewhere else.

My "slant" is that they have given me no reason to trust them, and history has shown time and time again what happens when government grows too big. I'm not going to give you a history lesson to try to prove a point that you may or may not miss.

hyperbole much?
I just pointed out that the position we are in right now (in which gov't has, over time, continually taken on social responsibilities) is a direct result of our democracy in action.

Yes, but the implication of what you said is that we should just continue letting our democracy take us in this direction since we already have for so long. And I disagree. If I'm wrong in assuming that, I'm sorry, but that was what your comment said to me.

you're an idiot if you believe it's that easy to just pull-out of a war after it's been going on for this long.
Obama ran on the platform of withdrawal...
but it's MUCH easier said than done.

If you're not going to do it, can't do it, or it's not going to happen when you say it is, then don't say it.

you know what platform little Bushy ran on?
"There will be no nation building."
that is the THE lie of the decade.

I honestly don't remember that being much of an issue in 2004. I mean what you're talking about here, not the war itself.

it's Bush who put us in that useless and wasteful situation to begin with. Bush policy is what has certain operations and contracts in process which cannot be severed at a moments notice.

Sure they can. The reason Obama hasn't done that is because he knows that the instant he does that, the situation over there will collapse and he will have to move troops back in making him look at least as bad as Bush did.

He's not an idiot. He knew two years ago when he started posturing his platform for President that he wasn't going to be able to drawn down the military in the timetable he was promising. Anyone who believed that he could was just fooling themselves.

fair points for argument.
but then you say:
which is not a fair point for argument.
no one knows what the outcome of this entire sh*t storm (the whole financial crisis, bailouts, etc) will be. there's no sound way to gauge our effectiveness at this point, not for at least 10 years out. the impact it will have on future generations is for anyone to guess.

every generation adds on some extra spending for the next to deal with. it's not like it ever goes down.

What do you mean? We are OVER SPENDING trillions of dollars. You think that money is just going to magically vanish sometime between now and 2025??

And government spending isn't going to go down. Even if Obama somehow successfully balances the federal budget by the time his first term is over (which won't happen, but for the sake of argument, we'll give him the benefit of doubt), it would still take DECADES to reverse the damage done in terms of federal debt.

Point being that future generations are going to have to deal with it eventually. It literally cannot keep growing forever.

everyone likes to keep their money and choose what they spend it on.
you didn't say anything profound.

Your attitude makes it seem like you're happy with the government taking your money and deciding what to use it on for you

I know, I know. to you, it's all highway robbery. the less gov't the better, and all that jazz. what have they done for me lately? etc, etc.
this is just where we agree to disagree on the fundamental debate concerning government's responsibility to its society.

I guess so. I share the view of the founders of our country.

uhh...
oh hey, thanks for correcting yourself before I had to do it.
whether or not they "helped" is not only irrelevant to the original point, but is up for debate itself.

If they were reformed and are still losing money, then the reform did not help. There isn't any reason to use any other measuring stick to determine if reform is successful. If a program cannot remain solvent, it's a failed program.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

I'm not going to give you a history lesson to try to prove a point that you may or may not miss.

it wouldn't prove anything.
trends are not absolute, nor is the size of our government.

If I'm wrong in assuming that, I'm sorry, but that was what your comment said to me.

you're forgiven.

If you're not going to do it, can't do it, or it's not going to happen when you say it is, then don't say it.

yes, if only it were that simple...
this is American politics, in case you forgot.

I honestly don't remember that being much of an issue in 2004. I mean what you're talking about here, not the war itself.

the war itself is the issue.
the previous administration claimed no nation building and promised swift action.

fast forward 10 years...

the situation over there will collapse

the situation over there will collapse no matter what we do.
we never should have gone.

He knew two years ago when he started posturing his platform for President that he wasn't going to be able to drawn down the military in the timetable he was promising

the point is that his ideals are anti-war.
anyone with a brain knew it would be much easier said than done. it's just another goal he outlined.
and I'd rather vote for that than the guy with the cowboy hat telling our enemies to "bring it on."

Point being that future generations are going to have to deal with it eventually.

now see, that's the reasonable point to make.
but you originally said that we would be "throwing" future generations "down the toilet" which is more of a stretch and a guess.

Your attitude makes it seem like you're happy with the government taking your money and deciding what to use it on for you

they're not telling me I have to buy women's underwear.
they're trying to offer me cheaper and more accessible health care.

I guess so. I share the view of the founders of our country.

the founders wanted people to be treated equally.
the system we have in place right now does not treat people equally.

If they were reformed and are still losing money, then the reform did not help.

we can debate effectiveness, but that wasn't my point.

 

[hal]

the founders wanted people to be treated equally.
the system we have in place right now does not treat people equally.

Wow, that's really a stretch. Equal treatment under the law doesn't mean that everyone is entitled to the same material possessions and services.