LGP Political Discussion Thread

[ExPatriatePen]

Then why, I wonder, does the CBO anticipate a net increase in the number of people on employer-provided insurance plans by 2016?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009 ... ouse-plan/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You would think that as payrolls expand from the current depressed levels over the next seven years that the number of employees receiving employer "sponsored" (not provided) coverage plans would also increase.

But that would be more than offset because “12 million people who would not be enrolled in an employment-based plan under current law would be covered by one in 2016, largely because the mandate for individuals to be insured would increase workers’ demand for insurance coverage through their employer,” the budget office wrote.

Huh??? The double speak is orthy of something Ellsworth Toohey would have said...

[Guinness]

From where in the Constitution does the federal government derive the power to provide insurance of any kind at all?

Even supporters of the prohibition of alcohol realized that, in order to do so, the Constitution needed to be amended in order to inact such a restriction/imposition upon the lives of the people.

This isn't a constitutional issue. No one is being forced to take health care insurance. Prohibition was taking something away, the government providing a health care option does not fall in that category.

Oh it most certainly is a constitutional issue. The federal government is restricted in what it may do, and providing health insurance most certainly falls outside of that provision.

[Ron`]

ExPat, you are a businessman. We both agree health care has to be reformed. Is a national health care plan business wise considering that it will be ultimately be passed down to businesses and the individual taxpayer? Can money be saved by just purely doing this? I am of the opinion that it will continue to spiral and the problems associated with it will not be addressed. Let alone we will magically just provide it for everyone at a savings...

[doublem]

From where in the Constitution does the federal government derive the power to provide insurance of any kind at all?

Even supporters of the prohibition of alcohol realized that, in order to do so, the Constitution needed to be amended in order to inact such a restriction/imposition upon the lives of the people.

This isn't a constitutional issue. No one is being forced to take health care insurance. Prohibition was taking something away, the government providing a health care option does not fall in that category.

Oh it most certainly is a constitutional issue. The federal government is restricted in what it may do, and providing health insurance most certainly falls outside of that provision.

Where does it say anywhere in the Constitution that the federal government cannot provide health care? The federal government is restricted in what it can do,but passing laws isn't one of them.

[dagny]

This isn't a constitutional issue. No one is being forced to take health care insurance. Prohibition was taking something away, the government providing a health care option does not fall in that category.

Oh it most certainly is a constitutional issue. The federal government is restricted in what it may do, and providing health insurance most certainly falls outside of that provision.

Where does it say anywhere in the Constitution that the federal government cannot provide health care? The federal government is restricted in what it can do,but passing laws isn't one of them.

Who is going to be forced to pay for gov't provided health care? For anything "provided" by the gov't, the taxpayers have to pay, whether they want to or not. That most certainly makes it a Constitutional issue.

(FWIW, this is coming from someone who hasn't had health insurance in over 10yrs, and desperately needs it. Yet, I still can not compromise my principles and agree with this. For an idea of what my priciples are, just read any post by Guinness. He seems to post exactly what I'm thinking.)

[Guinness]

Where does it say anywhere in the Constitution that the federal government cannot provide health care? The federal government is restricted in what it can do,but passing laws isn't one of them.

My pocket Constitution just happens to be creased to open to article 1, section 8: The powers of congress:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States [that dirty little bit that nay not be mentioned. To borrow money on the Creidt of the United States; To regulate [to make 'regular'] Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throught the United States; To coin Money [another, :OOPS:], regulate the value thereof, and of foriegn coin, and fix the standard of wieghts and measures [exciting stuff the Feds are in charge of, no?]; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the U.S.; To establish Post Officers and post Roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writing and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court; to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the low of nations; to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriatioin of money to that use shall be for a longer term than that of two years; to provide and maintain a Navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia accorind to the discipline prescirbed by Congress; to exercise exclusive legislations in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not esceeding then miles square) as may , by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise liek authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings - and 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 therofe


Now, before you go citing the so-called "general welfare" clause, do explain why all the above powers are enumerated, yet somehow the "general welfare" statement empowers the federal government to essentially do whatever it may wish...

[doublem]

Well of course we will be paying for it, that is why we have taxes, so we can pay for things we need. That is why it is important to have a public sphere not just a private one. We pay for defense, education, infrastructure, if you have a problem for paying for things that are not important and paying too much , okay, but one thing that is important that I think everyone can agree on is health care/ coverage. We have to live in reality, if we want things we have to pay a little extra for it, and as something as important as health care, I don't know why you would object. You would rather get sick then compromise your principles? I thought we solved tax issues about 400 years ago.

[Ron`]

See that is why the system needs to be fixed, but not governmentally controlled necessarily. A good taxpaying working individual cannot afford health care. But we are too worried about providing health care for everyone.... even those that aren't or never have been in that status without a just reason such as a handicap etc... financed by the backs of those that are out there scratching out a living.

This is like how we can solve the entire worlds problems syndrome on our dime... It isn't happening alone people, no matter how much we want to believe it.

Yes they deserve treatment, those not out there scratching, but they don't necessarily deserve head of the line status or ala carte benefits imo. The same as those that are out there working, those that are legitimately handicapped etc... What is the incentive to actually work and scratch for a living for that percentage of the populous?

[Guinness]

Who is going to be forced to pay for gov't provided health care? For anything "provided" by the gov't, the taxpayers have to pay, whether they want to or not. That most certainly makes it a Constitutional issue.

(FWIW, this is coming from someone who hasn't had health insurance in over 10yrs, and desperately needs it. Yet, I still can not compromise my principles and agree with this. For an idea of what my priciples are, just read any post by Guinness. He seems to post exactly what I'm thinking.)

The appropriately-used word for this in English is, "heroic".

"Well done!", to you, dagny.

[Guinness]

Well of course we will be paying for it, that is why we have taxes, so we can pay for things we need. That is why it is important to have a public sphere not just a private one. We pay for defense, education, infrastructure, if you have a problem for paying for things that are not important and paying too much , okay, but one thing that is important that I think everyone can agree on is health care/ coverage. We have to live in reality, if we want things we have to pay a little extra for it, and as something as important as health care, I don't know why you would object. You would rather get sick then compromise your principles? I thought we solved tax issues about 400 years ago.

Very good, sir. Amend the governing document under which this nation is ruled; for there is no provision under which the federal government may - in any way - involve itself in the health insurance of the people. This is a nation of laws, not of men, nor - in particular - of 'emotions'.

[Guinness]

By the way, and for what it is worth - doublem: you nearly quote verbatim a character from 'Atlas Shrugged'...

[Ron`]

Follow on to my comments, regaurding those that have scratched their way to senior status. Greater than 60 imo should never be denied access to health care based on their contribution to the tax base worth.... This bill will cut their care from the existing government run medical plan. One that has been downscaled multiple times. Why, because it's also bankrupt, much like social security. One was a safety net has continually been raided by our supposed representatives and the other has been completely mismanaged. How anyone can believe that this legislation could work? Let alone in the current world economic environment...

[doublem]

Where does it say anywhere in the Constitution that the federal government cannot provide health care? The federal government is restricted in what it can do,but passing laws isn't one of them.

My pocket Constitution just happens to be creased to open to article 1, section 8: The powers of congress:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States [that dirty little bit that nay not be mentioned. To borrow money on the Creidt of the United States; To regulate [to make 'regular'] Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throught the United States; To coin Money [another, :OOPS:], regulate the value thereof, and of foriegn coin, and fix the standard of wieghts and measures [exciting stuff the Feds are in charge of, no?]; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the U.S.; To establish Post Officers and post Roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writing and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court; to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the low of nations; to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriatioin of money to that use shall be for a longer term than that of two years; to provide and maintain a Navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia accorind to the discipline prescirbed by Congress; to exercise exclusive legislations in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not esceeding then miles square) as may , by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise liek authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings - and 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 therofe


Now, before you go citing the so-called "general welfare" clause, do explain why all the above powers are enumerated, yet somehow the "general welfare" statement empowers the federal government to essentially do whatever it may wish...

Huh, how could they put something about health care in the Constitution? They didn't even know what it was, if we are going to do that we should just start living like they did in 18th century. Congress is making a law, they do have the power to do that, so what is the problem?

[Guinness]

Huh, how could they put something about health care in the Constitution? They didn't even know what it was, if we are going to do that we should just start living like they did in 18th century. Congress is making a law, they do have the power to do that, so what is the problem?

The "problem" is that our government is bound by a legal document. That legal document includes no provision for federal government to provide "health care" to the citizens. Yes, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, The Iraq War, The Afghanistan War, Vietnam, Korea, etc.,... all of them are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, by simple definition. If you wish federal government to give you imperial wars and the right to medicine, you must amend the governing document. Otherwise, there is no in-fact restriction upon what the federal government may or may not do.

[Ron`]

We should start living like we are in the 18th century. Focus on our own problems but keep an open eye on the worlds problems. The age of our great financial and industrial edge is seemingly passed. Along with that should go our belief that we can help everyone. We should be more selective in what wordly issues we get involved with and focus on our own internal issues more closely. This is not to say we should be isolationists, we have to be involved and aware. But we cannot handicap our own society to save the world, unless we sense everyone is on board in unity.

Largely for the last 10 years that hasn't been the case and we are now paying the price. No matter what your political beliefs are it all comes back to dollars and sense, blood and guts too.... We are not in a state of affairs to even think we can solve the worlds problems, time to reflect on how we can just best influence them. Work to getting back to our state of status where we were internally as a nation. It's going to be really tough to do though as the decline is largely unseen by most of the populous.

[DelPen]

If insurance carriers can't cross over state lines then let this be a states issue and leave the feds out. Of course when revenues are good "free" health care is great like it was in MA, when revenues are down it's an albatross to the tax payer. It's funny, a year ago many hailed Romney as brilliant for helping craft what is now a bankrupt health care system in MA but then again he didn't run it for long, Democrats did

[dagny]

Huh, how could they put something about health care in the Constitution?

So, they didn't have medicine or doctors then?

[doublem]

Huh, how could they put something about health care in the Constitution?

So, they didn't have medicine or doctors then?

No, not 21st century medicine, a 300 million population, and 46 million people without coverage.

[Guinness]

Huh, how could they put something about health care in the Constitution?

So, they didn't have medicine or doctors then?

No, not 21st century medicine, a 300 million population, and 46 million people without coverage.

Which of course can ONLY be addressed by government, dagny... don't you see? 21st century medicine; 300 million people; 46 million people without 'insurance'... that's a 'problem' that can ONLY be 'solved' by government! 'People' are too stupid, or are incapable, of solving such a 'problem'.

[Idoit40fans]

safelight repair safelight replace!

[Kicksave]

safelight repair safelight replace!

I hate you so much you can't even imagine.

[Ron`]

Amen Guinness

[HomerPenguin]

If insurance carriers can't cross over state lines then let this be a states issue and leave the feds out.

I find it a little odd that supposed states rights advocates are the ones backing this "let insurance companies compete across state lines" idea, since all that means is effectively having the federal government abrogate state insurance standards and regulations. Any insurance company is free to compete in any state so long as they craft a policy that meets that state's minimum statutory requirements. Letting insurance companies "compete across state lines" simply removes the requirement for insurance companies to meet state-by-state requirements and thereby takes that regulatory power away from the states. Another wonderful idea to gift our insurance overlords with.

[MWB]

Which of course can ONLY be addressed by government, dagny... don't you see? 21st century medicine; 300 million people; 46 million people without 'insurance'... that's a 'problem' that can ONLY be 'solved' by government! 'People' are too stupid, or are incapable, of solving such a 'problem'.

What have "people" done to solve this problem so far? I'm not saying that this current health care bill is the way to go, but what is a solution? Most people agree that there are changes that need to be made, but very few offer viable solutions.

[dagny]

Huh, how could they put something about health care in the Constitution?

So, they didn't have medicine or doctors then?

No, not 21st century medicine, a 300 million population, and 46 million people without coverage.

I meant to also quote your following sentence, which said they didn't even know what health care was. My reply was in reference to that.

Regardless of your reply, don't tell us that it's not in the Constitution because they didn't even know what it was. Apparently, they did not look at is as an entitlement, either.