Socializing Healthcare Costs, et al.

[jgiffin]

There is nothing unconstitutional about the ACA, individual mandates go back to the beginning of this nation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/26/george-washingtons-individual-mandates/

The Ph level in my stomach remained relatively balanced until that last statement. It's flat out wrong and the fact the media sells it this way doesn't change anything. Let's revisit how ObamaCare became the "law of the land". I read the 270-odd page opinion and still can't get the odor of hellfire and brimstone out of my nostrils...

The bill that became ObamaCare (let's drop this ACA bullshit, shall we - liberals have been trying to own the language by changing it since long before Chomsky) did not pass the House of Representatives and the Senate proper. The two chambers could not get on the same page, even after exchanging numerous bills. After  Kennedy died, Massachusetts held a special election to seat his successor. The most liberal state in the nation elected Scott Brown, a Republican, knowing he would be the 41st Senator opposed to ObamaCare, which would allow a successful filibuster.

That meant the Senate couldn't get a bill out, so the House passed a previous bill from the Senate with the understanding that (extensive and improper) changes would be made to it in a House/Senate conference. Reid then moved that bill through the Senate under the "reconciliation" process, which is not subject to filibuster for some arcane and doubtless convenient reason. However, reconciliation has historically only been utilized for budget-neutral matters (the Byrd Rule). Ironically, reconciliation was initiated in 1974 as a method to reduce spending and bring expenditures into line with the budget. We now know, and really knew at the time, the bill was the antithesis of "budget-neutral".

At that point, the White House was characterizing the individual mandate as a "penalty" not a "tax" and its proponents were claiming it would actually reduce spending. When the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare, however, it was only by characterizing the individual mandate as a "tax" and not as a "penalty".  Fuck the contortionist semantics and backroom politics clearly evidenced by Roberts' shitstain of an opinion - We have a bill the public was told WAS NOT A TAX, passed through a process only appropriate for BUDGET NEUTRAL MATTERS, which the Supreme Court said was ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL AS A TAX, and is going to cost us more than $1.8 trillion (at last count) over the next ten years. Really? Seriously? And we're the ones promoting constitutional democracy around the world?

It also seems the law is just so fucking good no one wants shit to do with it. The White House has unilaterally granted over 1,400 Waivers from ObamaCare; primarily to Obama supporters and democratic groups. Congressional Staff - after months of bitching - eventually got stuck with ObamaCare but received a $7,000 subsidy. Of course, the rational question is why would anyone need a subsidy for the "Affordable" Care Act. I'm not even getting into the unilateral (i.e., unconstitutional) delays that Obama has implemented for purely political reasons.

The plane has flown into the fucking mountain, people. At this point, we should be altering flightpaths not debating whether it was properly a "mountain" or just a "steep hill".

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

Being from Massachusetts, we call it Romneycare, but that is beside the point. It comes down to your opinion against the supreme court's opinion.

That and constitutional law professor's opinions on the matter. http://www.fcan.org/Health_care/law_professors_ACA.pdf

What I do not get is what is the other plan? Or are we to just accept that tens of millions of our fellow citizens are to suffer illness and poverty, because civilization has left them behind? What plan do you have to address this massive suffering?

And again, I want Star Trek, and there is absolutely universal healthcare in Star Trek, isn't that the goal, the end game for humanity? Our future is built from the mythologies we create today, we must choose wisely.

Then there is the AI problem, in a matter of a few decades we will be introduced to a superior being, that superior being will learn to love humanity from us, but if we can not even do that our selves, how then can we teach another being to love us? And would you really want the most power being in the known universe to think like a libertarian? Wouldn't it then just eliminate us as unnecessary competition for resources?

[DigitalBuddha]

Personally, I don't see anything in the US Constitution permitting the Federal Government to establish and mandate a national health care system. Also, IMHO, the Tenth Amendment prohibits such a system at the federal level...

- Tenth Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Where does the US Constitution delegate power to the United States to establish a national mandatory health care law and system?


About the Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified. - United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).

The founding fathers had good reason to pen the Tenth Amendment.

The issue of power, and especially the great potential for a power struggle between the federal and the state governments, was extremely important to the America's founders. They deeply distrusted government power, and their goal was to prevent the growth of the type of government that the British has exercised over the colonies.

Adoption of the Constitution of 1787 was opposed by a number of well-known patriots including Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others. They passionately argued that the Constitution would eventually lead to a strong, centralized state power which would destroy the individual liberty of the People. Many in this movement were given the poorly-named tag ?Anti-Federalists.

The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution of 1787 largely because of the intellectual influence and personal persistence of the Anti-Federalists and their allies.

It's quite clear that the Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government. In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers.

When states and local communities take the lead on policy, the people are that much closer to the policymakers, and policymakers are that much more accountable to the people. Few Americans have spoken with their president; many have spoken with their mayor.

Adherence to the Tenth Amendment is the first step towards ensuring liberty in the United States. Liberty through decentralization.

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

But are you a constitutional lawyer? Or Supreme Court justice? We voted, the lawyers spoke, and the Supreme Court tradified it, it is constitutional, those are the tests, it passed.

Speaking of democracy, 65 million of us voted for this vicariously through Obama, so what, our opinion and votes are shit? Because there is more than one philosophy out there?

I am absolutely of the not unpopular opinion that healthcare is 100% the responsibility of the state, same as security from terrorism and crime, it makes no sense to save citizens from bombs and not cancer. From that purchase, to veiw handing that power to private corporations, essentially handing them a captive consumer class smacks deeply of fascism. Giving control of people's lives and health over to corporate interests.

You may not trust government, but why would you put that trust in private individuals is beyond me. It would stand to reason that if you can not trust the elected state, how could you trust individuals with no accountability?

[DigitalBuddha]

But are you a constitutional lawyer? Or Supreme Court justice? We voted, the lawyers spoke, and the Supreme Court tradified it, it is constitutional, those are the tests, it passed.

No, I'm the Government.

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."

  - Abraham Lincoln

[jgiffin]

But are you a constitutional lawyer?

Actually, yes. But you needn't be. Anyone with a high school reading comprehension and some time on their hands can read the various opinions and see the mental gymnastics the justices employed to hobble together a majority opinion.

Remember, Dred Scott was once the law of the land, too. Who is defending that one now?

[DigitalBuddha]

But are you a constitutional lawyer?

Actually, yes. But you needn't be. Anyone with a high school reading comprehension and some time on their hands can read the various opinions and see the mental gymnastics the justices employed to hobble together a majority opinion.

Remember, Dred Scott was once the law of the land, too. Who is defending that one now?

As far as I can tell, ObamaCare is illegal and wholly Unconstitutional, the Constitution in America being the supreme law of the land. Hence the reason several states have begun the process to ban it within their respective borders........

See -

http://medcitynews.com/2014/01/south-carolina-lawmakers-say-know-ban-obamacare/

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/mikeshedlock/2013/12/29/obamacare-showdown-missouri-bill-to-gut-obamacare-ban-penalties-ban-healthcare-exchange-n1769439/page/full

[BikerDude]

But are you a constitutional lawyer?

Actually, yes. But you needn't be. Anyone with a high school reading comprehension and some time on their hands can read the various opinions and see the mental gymnastics the justices employed to hobble together a majority opinion.

Remember, Dred Scott was once the law of the land, too. Who is defending that one now?

As far as I can tell, ObamaCare is illegal and wholly Unconstitutional, the Constitution in America being the supreme law of the land. Hence the reason several states have begun the process to ban it within their respective borders........

See -

http://medcitynews.com/2014/01/south-carolina-lawmakers-say-know-ban-obamacare/

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/mikeshedlock/2013/12/29/obamacare-showdown-missouri-bill-to-gut-obamacare-ban-penalties-ban-healthcare-exchange-n1769439/page/full

I thought that lost in the Supreme Court?

[jgiffin]

But are you a constitutional lawyer?

Actually, yes. But you needn't be. Anyone with a high school reading comprehension and some time on their hands can read the various opinions and see the mental gymnastics the justices employed to hobble together a majority opinion.

Remember, Dred Scott was once the law of the land, too. Who is defending that one now?

As far as I can tell, ObamaCare is illegal and wholly Unconstitutional, the Constitution in America being the supreme law of the land. Hence the reason several states have begun the process to ban it within their respective borders........

See -

http://medcitynews.com/2014/01/south-carolina-lawmakers-say-know-ban-obamacare/

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/mikeshedlock/2013/12/29/obamacare-showdown-missouri-bill-to-gut-obamacare-ban-penalties-ban-healthcare-exchange-n1769439/page/full

I thought that lost in the Supreme Court?

Neither measure is ready for that level of judicial review yet. And while I dig their style, they're fighting a losing battle with the Feds. States rights have been essentially abrogated and neither national political party has an interest in seeing it revived. The only real possibility to pry power away from the national parties is a constitutional convention called by the states to propose amendments. Of course, the Feds either wouldn't recognize the amendment process or (more likely) would infiltrate and sabotage it from within. At least it would make their actions transparent, though.

Challenging a corrupt system by using the broken tools it provides is not likely to change anything. It's like Stalin said, follow the money...and, uh...well, you see what I mean. Until the government is required to use force to implement its statist and proto-fascistic mandates, nothing changes. Which basically means we have to take it until we don't.

Oh, hell, dudes, I'm way too stressed. Fucking employment. Time for some intoxicating beverages. Later.