House passes Senate health care bill

[valo403]

Originally Posted by doglover

care to tell me where it says the government can run healthcare?
the constitution isn't black and white- if it doesn't specifically state that healthcare can be run by the government than it can't. Also, you can't interpret clauses in the constitution to make it seem universal health care is constitutional. It's not written a foreign language so it shouldn't be interpreted. The constitution limits power it does not extend it.

Well this is interesting. In the last sentence you seem to indicate that you grasp what the constiution does, yet you spend the rest of the post saying that unless authorized by the constiution the government cannot take certain action. Judging by the general make-up of your post I'm going to come to the overall conclusion that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by doglover

care to tell me where it says the government can run healthcare?
the constitution isn't black and white- if it doesn't specifically state that healthcare can be run by the government than it can't. Also, you can't interpret clauses in the constitution to make it seem universal health care is constitutional. It's not written a foreign language so it shouldn't be interpreted. The constitution limits power it does not extend it.

Er.... huh?

So it's NOT black and white--but we should read what it says as excluding every possible thing it doesn't say? By your own logic, the constitution ONLY limits the specific things that it mentions! That's not only nonsense--it contradicts the very argument you're trying to make.


Sorry--you fail at constitutional law.

[doglover]

you still haven't told me where the consitution authorizes it
*waits for commerce clause fallacy*

[doglover]

lol sorry im in class I meant to say it IS black and white

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by doglover

you still haven't told me where the consitution authorizes it
*waits for commerce clause fallacy*

We don't have to. By your own logic, the Constitution would have to specifically exclude the provisions of this bill for it to have any relevance whatsoever.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

The government can compete with private companies, it happens all the time. Same goes for across the board regulation.

Oh they do, I get that, but your dealing with a multi-billion dollar special interest group with the most powerful lobby ever known to mankind.

You can bet that their lawyers have already been snapped into action.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Oh they do, I get that, but your dealing with a multi-billion dollar special interest group with the most powerful lobby ever known to mankind.

You can bet that their lawyers have already been snapped into action.

Their lawyers already have their fingerprints all over this legislation.

[CaptainCrunch]

Oh I know, I'm just waiting for Lionel Hutz's next move.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Oh they do, I get that, but your dealing with a multi-billion dollar special interest group with the most powerful lobby ever known to mankind.

You can bet that their lawyers have already been snapped into action.

I read your post as saying they wouldn't be allowed to compete, my fault.

Maybe bailing out AIG was just the beginning of a genius plan to slip into the insurance game undetected and then crush all dissenters.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by doglover

lol sorry im in class I meant to say it IS black and white

Well now you've gone and changed your only marginally correct answer.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Oh I know, I'm just waiting for Lionel Hutz's next move.

This is the guy you should be worried about:


He usually remembers to wear pants.

[Rockin' Flames]

Luckily several states are planning on challenging the constitutionality of this bill.

The requirement to purchase car insurance also falls under state jurisdiction and not federally. Even then there is no requirement to own a car so if you don't own a car you don't have to have insurance.

[Caged Great]

You know, it would make a great campaign ad for the next election to have a cancer survivor that would've been denied treatment had this not been enacted saying if it was up to the republicans I would be dead now. It would be a bit sleazy, but completely accurate.

That is the root of all of this. 30 million people now have a chance of surviving a deadly disease where they wouldn't have been able to before.

[Pastiche]

Pretty amazing that an equivalent of the entire population of Canada had no health insurance, in the wealthiest country in the world.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

You know, it would make a great campaign ad for the next election to have a cancer survivor that would've been denied treatment had this not been enacted saying if it was up to the republicans I would be dead now. It would be a bit sleazy, but completely accurate.

That is the root of all of this. 30 million people now have a chance of surviving a deadly disease where they wouldn't have been able to before.

Followed by a republican add that showed the amount of money spent on insurance subsidies, followed by an ad where a pretty young mother and her two very young children watch tearfully as their daddy is hauled off to the clink for not having insurance.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Luckily several states are planning on challenging the constitutionality of this bill.

The requirement to purchase car insurance also falls under state jurisdiction and not federally. Even then there is no requirement to own a car so if you don't own a car you don't have to have insurance.

They can challenge it all they like. They won't win. Just out of curiosity, which part of the constitution do you think is relevant here?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Followed by a republican add that showed the amount of money spent on insurance subsidies, followed by an ad where a pretty young mother and her two very young children watch tearfully as their daddy has a small amount of money added to his tax due at the end of the year for not having insurance.

FYP. We're not living in 1984 here--there's no cause for undue paranoia.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Here's an interesting take on the cost of the bill:

The $900 billion price tag is repeated with the regularity of a rooster's crow. That's a shame, as the number is, somewhat impressively, misleading in both directions. On the one hand, that $900 billion -- or, more precisely, $940 billion in the final legislation -- is stretched over 10 years. But people don't think in 10-year increments. They don't pay taxes once a decade. Put more simply, the bill will cost an average of $94 billion a year over the first 10 years.
But that's not quite right either: The bill wouldn't really kick in until 2014. To get a more accurate annual figure, look at a year in which the bill is fully operational. In, say, 2016, the bill's spending will be about $160 billion (you can find these numbers on page 22 of the CBO report). According to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, total health-care spending that year will be about $3.7 trillion. In other words, the bill's spending is equivalent to about 4 percent of what we'll spend in health care in a year, and it will be covering 30 million people.

Food for thought. Article is here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ll_really.html

[amorak]

Originally Posted by doglover

care to tell me where it says the government can run healthcare?
the constitution isn't black and white- if it doesn't specifically state that healthcare can be run by the government than it can't. Also, you can't interpret clauses in the constitution to make it seem universal health care is constitutional. It's not written a foreign language so it shouldn't be interpreted. The constitution limits power it does not extend it.

Uhhhhhhh, your knowledge of the US constitution is terribly, terribly flawed, and I'm a Canadian!

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

They can challenge it all they like. They won't win. Just out of curiosity, which part of the constitution do you think is relevant here?

The Constitution isn't what matters. Given who's on the Supreme Court, I could see the decision going either way.