You're conflating whether they disagreed, or whether they simply did not want to argue the point. You can agree with something but find it politically advantageous to argue against it, and vice versa.
1) I think it's quietly a position a majority of Americans hold, or could not reasonably explain their opposition to. That includes a good half of the Republican party. I've come around to it after a lot of consideration, and while I don't believe healthcare is a human right, and should not be a Constitutional Right, I do believe that as a society we have the ability to provide it, and the duty to do so. I believe this is a position that has gained a lot of traction within the party, and could gain a lot more if we took the honest Republican objections seriously (cost, accessibility, increased government control) and addressed them in Constitutional, non-stupid ways. I think the "death panels" rhetoric is a consequence of the feeling that Republicans were frozen out of the bill's creation and that the whole thing was rammed down our throats by an arrogant President and a bitter, vengeful Democratic majority in Congress. It felt like a giant Fuck You to the GOP.
Maybe that wasn't how it actually went down, but it certainly felt that way. It's taken me a couple of years to climb down from pure partisan red- eyed anger over it, and I think I'm pretty representative of a large portion of the GOP.
While you may feel that the society has an obligation to provide reasonable and affordable health insurance to the masses, your party does not feel that way. The only Constitutional way to address this issue is to expand the pool of insured, which (unless we want to deficit spend like crazy) will result in a net increase in taxes. Seeing as how the party has been taken over by the Religious Fundamentalists and the Libertarians, tax increases are a non-starter. I don't see any traction within your party to make headway with this.
Also, the "Death Panels" rhetoric was disingenuous and dishonest; it did not reflect the better parts of your party's nature and you should not defend it. There are a number of reasonable ways to argue about the dangers of the expansion of government without resorting to lies and misinformation. To your last point here, that Republicans felt as though they were frozen out of the process - I would be more sympathetic to that position if it were actually true. The Obama administration actually attempted to facilitate talks with key republicans, reaching out to the both the leadership and the moderate conservatives. There was no interest in setting up a single-payer or universal health care system, since that would increase taxes. There was an attempt to decouple a few key provisions, the denying of health insurance to children with preexisting conditions for example. Republican's weren't interested in that either; even though it was a slam dunk for them legislatively, it would have been a "win" for the Obama administration.
2) No, I don't believe so with a Democrat-controlled Senate. With Republican control in the House and a slim GOP majority in the Senate I believe we will see movement that direction, and possibly a better bill. If the Dems regain control, I feel we'll just repeat this whole process. At least Pelosi won't laugh at people who ask her if Obamacare II is Constitutional.
What indicators have you seen from the Republican leadership, that would suggest they are interested in setting up a Universal Health Care system? Their publicly taken stance has been to argue for the removal of the social safety net, not the expansion of it. In order to setup some kind of broad, inclusive access to health care, the Federal Government will have to be involved. The Republican party isn't simply disinterested in this; they are adamantly against it.
3) Romney likes universal care. He can't say so now because he gets kicked in the balls by Santorum. If the mandate is struck down, it frees him to support a UHC system as a Republican without the Masscare albatross around his neck. With a GOP Congress, something will happen in the context of a crapload of deficit reduction. If the Democrats somehow hold the Senate, the chance for a good compromise bill to replace Obamacare is high.
If Romney wins and the mandate is Constitutional, expect a partial, or even a full repeal in 2013. Incentive will be sadly low for implementing any sort of replacement until after what I expect would be a dramatic Democratic resurgence in the 2014 midterms.
Romney, based on his primary rhetoric, has been arguing up-and-down that this is a state's rights issue, and that states need to solve this on an individual level. Romney does not actually like Universal Health Care; he likes the individual mandate in his particular state of Massachusetts. He is not interested in setting up a federal level series of health care services.
Also government revenue is a combination of taxes and expenditures. Broadly slashing the budget must cut funding from social programs, if raising taxes is not possible. I'm not seeing how the party interested in reducing the deficit through the gutting of social programs is really all that interested in expanding government funding of health care.
4) Killing the mandate and a divided government will be the best chance for a better bill next year. I haven't thought much beyond that, but a series of state programs might work well to move the conversation forward. I wouldn't argue with a huge grant from the federal govt. to the states, with guidelines attached, and an opportunity to see what the states can come up with. We're a diverse nation, and Arkansas healthcare will probably never look like it does in New Jersey or Texas or Washington. Beyond some generous and sensible minimum guidelines, I'm not sure it should!
That's the problem, in it's entirety. Without Federal involvement of some kind, there will be a great disparity of health care between the red and blue states. This strikes to the heart of the issue: is health care a right? You've expressed that you don't believe so, but that it's a duty of the government to provide, since they have the capacity to. That's reasonable; I tend to disagree, but I can understand your position. The reality though, is that the "sensible minimum guidelines" are the crux of the issue. With one side believing the sensible guideline are such that all Americans should have some rudimentary set of health care services which will not impoverish them (or keep them impoverished should they already be); while the other side believes that Federal Government should not be providing those services in the first place.
I don't see the current crop of Republican law makers healing that divide.
Roz on
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
To counter the argument that the law isn't a law and the courts should never have heard the case in the first place?
The simple fact that the suit wasn't thrown out at a series of levels and that the SCOTUS granted cert. is enough to refute that. I don't need to quote legal minds - that there is a case being heard right now makes the point well enough, and sets the bar for arguing against it very high.
Except one of the the things they're deciding is whether or not they can even decide on the case yet or if they have to wait until 2015. And the fact that you're ignoring the point that a law without teeth is meaningless (which I believe I learned on day two or three of my American Government class in high school, but it was an AP class so it may have been more advanced than some people would get).
They were probably teaching to the test, which is why you've confused meaning and consequence. Our education system is a disaster!
I know that's one of the things they're deciding, but remember they had to appoint a lawyer with the miserable job of arguing no standing, because nobody else agreed. From the oral arguments, it seemed pretty clear that none of the justices did either. It's a safe bet the case will not be thrown out on this point, but if it is I'll gladly come back in the thread and eat my virtual hat.
Oh fuck right off. If you can't debate without resorting to "you're an idiot, sad panda" go somewhere else.
One of the ways that the President can fuck with Congress is by not funding or enforcing regulations. This is a fact, stop living in the land of pedantry and join us in reality.
I don't think this case is going to be thrown out either, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Lawndart was also accurate when he said that if he chose not to buy health insurance, there really isn't much the government can do. You're living in some dream world where the government can just ignore statutes and laws but I've come to expect incoherent arguments from you, sadly enough.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Also, it's pretty funny that somehow people who disagree with out are a result of a poor education system but you've somehow managed to rise above it.
I still love how the Democratic majority in Congress actually passing legislation without kowtowing to the ever-shifting objections of the obstructionist GOP minority is an "arrogant", "bitter", "vengeful" "ramming down the throat" kind of thing, rather than, you know, elections having consequences.
I'd say that "fuck you" is the only proper response to "We demand you compromise so we won't have to. Oh, so you want to compromise on everything? Well, tough shit, you need to compromise on even more things we've just decided are really important, and we still offer nothing in return".
0
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
The thing is that no one "wins" in the real world if the mandate is shut down or even the law itself has to be dismantled. The same fiscal scolds and libertarian anti-deficit obsessives are going to watch health costs fucking the country apart at an unprecedented case.
A proper, socialist, centralized system or utter meltdown are inevitable, the question is how much suffering the US can take before it veers panickingly to the former.
To counter the argument that the law isn't a law and the courts should never have heard the case in the first place?
The simple fact that the suit wasn't thrown out at a series of levels and that the SCOTUS granted cert. is enough to refute that. I don't need to quote legal minds - that there is a case being heard right now makes the point well enough, and sets the bar for arguing against it very high.
Except one of the the things they're deciding is whether or not they can even decide on the case yet or if they have to wait until 2015. And the fact that you're ignoring the point that a law without teeth is meaningless (which I believe I learned on day two or three of my American Government class in high school, but it was an AP class so it may have been more advanced than some people would get).
They were probably teaching to the test, which is why you've confused meaning and consequence. Our education system is a disaster!
I know that's one of the things they're deciding, but remember they had to appoint a lawyer with the miserable job of arguing no standing, because nobody else agreed. From the oral arguments, it seemed pretty clear that none of the justices did either. It's a safe bet the case will not be thrown out on this point, but if it is I'll gladly come back in the thread and eat my virtual hat.
Oh fuck right off. If you can't debate without resorting to "you're an idiot, sad panda" go somewhere else.
One of the ways that the President can fuck with Congress is by not funding or enforcing regulations. This is a fact, stop living in the land of pedantry and join us in reality.
I don't think this case is going to be thrown out either, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Lawndart was also accurate when he said that if he chose not to buy health insurance, there really isn't much the government can do. You're living in some dream world where the government can just ignore statutes and laws but I've come to expect incoherent arguments from you, sadly enough.
Pff. You don't get freebie snark about your AP learnin', man. Cracks like that will draw a response, so let's not get all indignant.
Anyway, I freely admit this is pedantic (and did so earlier, with apologies!), but Constitutionality is necessarily pedantic.
Regarding enforcement, I'm not suggesting that the government will or should ignore the law - I'm arguing that a) they will change it as soon as they possibly can to include real enforcement because they have no choice but to do so, and b) the lack of enforcement doesn't have any bearing on whether the effort to regulate the insurance market as the mandate does is Constitutional.
Are you going to try and argue that the regulation isn't regulating anything? If you want to take the position that Obama's signature legislative achievement amounts to "man, I really hope people buy insurance we will never force them to buy, because otherwise I've destroyed the healthcare system"...
... well, OK, but even I give him more credit than that.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
Spool, you missed the point of the AP snark. The reality of toothless legislation a basic fact of the United States government, and you implied I had no idea what I was talking about because I was taught to the test and the education system is so terribad. That's where I was getting indignant. If you can go a day without resort to things like "Hey lawndart, I've got a bridge!" maybe people would give you more of a benefit of the doubt.
So I stand by my previous invitation.
Also, try rereading my posts and maybe you'll find the answer to your question.
I'm actually on the side of Spool32 on this: the ACA probably chose the wrong and convoluted way to skin a cat. Whether or not that will be found unconstitutional is one thing, and we'll have to find out. A famous Belgian politician/constitutionalist once said: "A camel is a horse that passed through parliament".
But I'm actually shocked at Spool32's suggestion to go to the Netherlands system (though, as a "commie" European, I could only applaud this). I have a few (honest) questions towards Spool32 in his capacity of the most reasonable and articulate republican I've met online though:
1. Do you feel that this ("we don't need universal access to health insurance, we need universal health care") is a position that is held, or even accepted by any substantial faction of the Republican base? It's a position I've never heard articulated by any of the current candidates, nor by any of the major opinion makers, but I could be missing something. Do you, in discussing this with republican friends of yours, feel that there is a grassroots support for this that's being shouted over by the "death panels" crowd?
2. Do you feel that, for example, if the individual mandate were to be struck down, that such a "replacement" system would have any chance of passing if Obama term II happens with (let's say) a Dem House and Senate, so long as there remains a single filibuster-opportunity left?
3. Same question as 2., but with a Romney presidency and a D or R house/senate?
4. In view of your answers to 2 and 3: what's your ten year plan to get to that end-result?
In the time I spent in Europe, the Netherlands struck me as being the most "American" in attitude, sentiment, and institutions. I really felt at home there, in a way I never did elsewhere in Europe. Maybe it was just the people I spent time with, but that was my experience!
To your questions:
1) I think it's quietly a position a majority of Americans hold, or could not reasonably explain their opposition to. That includes a good half of the Republican party. I've come around to it after a lot of consideration, and while I don't believe healthcare is a human right, and should not be a Constitutional Right, I do believe that as a society we have the ability to provide it, and the duty to do so. I believe this is a position that has gained a lot of traction within the party, and could gain a lot more if we took the honest Republican objections seriously (cost, accessibility, increased government control) and addressed them in Constitutional, non-stupid ways. I think the "death panels" rhetoric is a consequence of the feeling that Republicans were frozen out of the bill's creation and that the whole thing was rammed down our throats by an arrogant President and a bitter, vengeful Democratic majority in Congress. It felt like a giant Fuck You to the GOP.
Maybe that wasn't how it actually went down, but it certainly felt that way. It's taken me a couple of years to climb down from pure partisan red- eyed anger over it, and I think I'm pretty representative of a large portion of the GOP.
2) No, I don't believe so with a Democrat-controlled Senate. With Republican control in the House and a slim GOP majority in the Senate I believe we will see movement that direction, and possibly a better bill. If the Dems regain control, I feel we'll just repeat this whole process. At least Pelosi won't laugh at people who ask her if Obamacare II is Constitutional.
3) Romney likes universal care. He can't say so now because he gets kicked in the balls by Santorum. If the mandate is struck down, it frees him to support a UHC system as a Republican without the Masscare albatross around his neck. With a GOP Congress, something will happen in the context of a crapload of deficit reduction. If the Democrats somehow hold the Senate, the chance for a good compromise bill to replace Obamacare is high.
If Romney wins and the mandate is Constitutional, expect a partial, or even a full repeal in 2013. Incentive will be sadly low for implementing any sort of replacement until after what I expect would be a dramatic Democratic resurgence in the 2014 midterms.
4) Killing the mandate and a divided government will be the best chance for a better bill next year. I haven't thought much beyond that, but a series of state programs might work well to move the conversation forward. I wouldn't argue with a huge grant from the federal govt. to the states, with guidelines attached, and an opportunity to see what the states can come up with. We're a diverse nation, and Arkansas healthcare will probably never look like it does in New Jersey or Texas or Washington. Beyond some generous and sensible minimum guidelines, I'm not sure it should!
This is the single most delusional post I have ever read on these forums, and I've read conspiracy theory threads.
1) You don't legislate based on feelings, and if you did, you're assholes. You legislate based on reality. Of course, none of this is true, because the GOP's STATED GOAL has been to destroy Obama from the day he took office. They didn't make this a secret. They were not negotiating in good faith. So when after almost two fucking years the Democrats finally told them to fuck off they were obviously arrogant bullies who must be destroyed. It's nice how everything confirms the narrative you started with.
2) Based on what, exactly, from the post-war era, do you make this assumption? Nixon is the only Republican who even tried to address health care, and the Democrats arrogantly figured they could win the next election and get single payer so rejected his deal. That was 40 years ago. Since then they have "offered" plans every time a Democrat held office, only to obstruct and destroy and then conveniently forget about the issue when they have the Presidency or Congress. And no, Medicare Part D doesn't count.
3) Ah, the old Romney is just a liar and after we vote for his dishonest ass he'll get right to fixing health care because politicians totally don't govern how they campaign. Just like I'm sure the Republicans who were campaigning in the summer of 2010 would totally end up governing as moderates, they were just being totally batshit in order to win your totally batshit party's primary vote. But it will get better after we have power, totally! Just like George Bush was a moderate and not a conservative ideologue! Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice... can't get fooled again.
4) Why? The states would just take the money and do whatever the fuck they wanted with it. See: the tobacco settlement, the banking settlement, the balanced budget amendments in the state that basically require them to act this way. And more generally, a divided government will either a) have a Democratic President y'all will continue wanting to destroy above all else or b) have Republicans insist on their way or the highway. Just like always.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The fact that it's toothless right now is of no consequence when talking about Constitutionality or standing, or at least that's the safe bet wrt Monday's argument.
Those two points are the whole of what I'm saying on this tangent.
SCOTUS may uphold the mandate because they can't figure out what to do with the rest of the law if they strike it down. I don't buy that argument, but what happens if they rule the mandate unconstitutional will be interesting.
The Wednesday morning argument offered the Court three mutually exclusive options: strike down all of the Affordable Care Act along with the mandate (the challengers’ position), strike down only two core changes in the way the health insurance system works (the government position), and strike down nothing but the mandate (the position of a Court-appointed lawyer). Not one seemed to be especially appealing to members of the Court, and each of the three lawyers who came to the lectern faced tough and often skeptical questioning, from across the bench.
Congress’s capacity to react in a sensible way also came into some question, particularly from Justice Scalia and, in a way, from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, both of whom seemed to harbor doubts that the lawmakers would be up to the task of working out a new health care law if this one failed, either totally or partially. Scalia noted the problems in the filibuster-prone Senate. Kennedy wondered whether expecting Congress to perform was a reference to “the real Congress or the hypothetical Congress.”
So because Republicans tried to cockblock the ACA by bringing it to the Supreme Court, they actually might uphold it because they know the Republicans would just cockblock anything else that would come along as a replacement?
If a law is unconstitutional, it's not a good law. This law is especially not good! It makes me very pleased that we can consider Constitutionality over efficacy in our nation. It's a far more important principle than anything we gain by upholding the individual mandate.
The law's intention and sentiment is good and, if you'll read some of my other posts in here you'll see that I generally agree with it. I hope we can come up with a better way to reach the same goal. A Constitutional way, a way that doesn't dramatically expand government regulatory power.
I want a good new law, not the new bad law or the old, bad system that preceded it.
You appear to be neglecting the possibility that if a law is unconstitutional, it's the Constitution that is not good.
If a law is unconstitutional, it's not a good law. This law is especially not good! It makes me very pleased that we can consider Constitutionality over efficacy in our nation. It's a far more important principle than anything we gain by upholding the individual mandate.
The law's intention and sentiment is good and, if you'll read some of my other posts in here you'll see that I generally agree with it. I hope we can come up with a better way to reach the same goal. A Constitutional way, a way that doesn't dramatically expand government regulatory power.
I want a good new law, not the new bad law or the old, bad system that preceded it.
You appear to be neglecting the possibility that if a law is unconstitutional, it's the Constitution that is not good.
Since I am being pedantic already, I'll say: no.
If a law is unconstutional, I is a bad law, period.
If a good idea cannot be implemented constitutionally, we should amend the constitution.
If a law is unconstitutional, it's not a good law. This law is especially not good! It makes me very pleased that we can consider Constitutionality over efficacy in our nation. It's a far more important principle than anything we gain by upholding the individual mandate.
The law's intention and sentiment is good and, if you'll read some of my other posts in here you'll see that I generally agree with it. I hope we can come up with a better way to reach the same goal. A Constitutional way, a way that doesn't dramatically expand government regulatory power.
I want a good new law, not the new bad law or the old, bad system that preceded it.
You appear to be neglecting the possibility that if a law is unconstitutional, it's the Constitution that is not good.
Since I am being pedantic already, I'll say: no.
If a law is unconstutional, I is a bad law, period.
If a good idea cannot be implemented constitutionally, we should amend the constitution.
So because Republicans tried to cockblock the ACA by bringing it to the Supreme Court, they actually might uphold it because they know the Republicans would just cockblock anything else that would come along as a replacement?
The system works!
I'm snickering at your (probably accidental) implied statement here... That the ACA's goal is to fuck us all.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Spool, why are you being such a trollbag? The ACA getting voted down isn't a good thing if it's based on a fairly unfounded slippery slope argument which is literally the only argument that the antiACA attorneys are parroting.
It's fine if you don't like it, but you can't say thing like that and then be bewildered when you piss everyone off.
0
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Couldn't the mandate be enforced even if there aren't any penalties for not paying the penalty? Because you'd either see the difference reflected in a lower tax return or something similar? It's not like Uncle Sam would just forget about it.
I don't understand how the supreme court can strike down the rest of the law absent the mandate, if the rest of it is presumably constitutional. Wouldn't it be congress' job to address any problems the lack of mandate creates?
I think the "death panels" rhetoric is a consequence of the feeling that Republicans were frozen out of the bill's creation and that the whole thing was rammed down our throats by an arrogant President and a bitter, vengeful Democratic majority in Congress. It felt like a giant Fuck You to the GOP.
Bull fucking shit. You are not this blind or stupid. Republicans demanded concession after concession, and then still unanimously voted against it. That is not being frozen out of the legislative process in any way. How long is your throat, that something rammed down it takes fifteen months to get through? As for an arrogant president and bitter or vengeful Democratic Congress, please. When it comes to those three qualities, nobody can hold a candle to Republican conference committees that exclude Democrats entirely, Republicans opposing bills more conservative than ones they introduced previously, and Mitch McConnell announcing that the top priority for Republicans in the Senate was defeating Obama.
The Supreme Court has the authority to strike the law down in whole or in part. Both sides make a series of arguments as to which matters of law should remain if other aspects are found unconstitutional. The plaintiff in this case, believes the entire law should be struck down should the mandate be found unconstitutional.
If a law is unconstitutional, it's not a good law. This law is especially not good! It makes me very pleased that we can consider Constitutionality over efficacy in our nation. It's a far more important principle than anything we gain by upholding the individual mandate.
The law's intention and sentiment is good and, if you'll read some of my other posts in here you'll see that I generally agree with it. I hope we can come up with a better way to reach the same goal. A Constitutional way, a way that doesn't dramatically expand government regulatory power.
I want a good new law, not the new bad law or the old, bad system that preceded it.
You appear to be neglecting the possibility that if a law is unconstitutional, it's the Constitution that is not good.
Since I am being pedantic already, I'll say: no.
If a law is unconstutional, I is a bad law, period.
If a good idea cannot be implemented constitutionally, we should amend the constitution.
Well, we can't amend it. So, we either have America doomed to be a shitty country forever, or we abuse the ever-loving crap out of the Interstate Commerce and General Welfare clauses. I choose the latter.
Wouldn't it be grand if the supreme court also struck down TANF, SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal drug laws, and all the 10th's shenanigans along with the ACA
I mean they won't, but if the mandate is unconstitutional, so are all of those things for the same reason
Wouldn't it be grand if the supreme court also struck down TANF, SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal drug laws, and all the 10th's shenanigans along with the ACA
I mean they won't, but if the mandate is unconstitutional, so are all of those things for the same reason
They don't have individual mandates.
Well, they do, but you know, it's not the same because stuff
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Here's a slippery slope argument that I'm concerned about:
If this law is found to be unconstitutional here's why:
1.) Obama is elected.
2.) The GOP proclaims for all the world to remember that their only goal is to make him a one term president.
3.) They spend the next three and a half years undermining the president and the Democrats with little effort or care given to actual governance of the nation.
4.) One of these efforts is the Affordable Care Act. This act is stonewalled by the Republicans at every turn, the GOP forces a nerfed law through Congress.
5.) Immediately, the GOP sues the government to get the law considered unconstitutional, citing provisions that their own intransigence created.
Spool, why are you being such a trollbag? The ACA getting voted down isn't a good thing if it's based on a fairly unfounded slippery slope argument which is literally the only argument that the antiACA attorneys are parroting.
It's fine if you don't like it, but you can't say thing like that and then be bewildered when you piss everyone off.
Why do they have to be 'parroting' the argument? You can't say things like that and not expect me to get my back up at least a little bit. I'm not really up for being held to a different standard of civility than everyone else.
I find the challenging argument compelling, and I have for a while. I don't think its a bad thing to trash the mandate on a principle that the government doesn't have that much power.
Here's a slippery slope argument that I'm concerned about:
If this law is found to be unconstitutional here's why:
1.) Obama is elected.
2.) The GOP proclaims for all the world to remember that their only goal is to make him a one term president.
3.) They spend the next three and a half years undermining the president and the Democrats with little effort or care given to actual governance of the nation.
4.) One of these efforts is the Affordable Care Act. This act is stonewalled by the Republicans at every turn, the GOP forces a nerfed law through Congress.
5.) Immediately, the GOP sues the government to get the law considered unconstitutional, citing provisions that their own intransigence created.
Anybody else see the problem here?
They want to game the system. Legally, they are allowed to do so. If we don't like it, our recourse is to elect better representation. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be path that we are on at the moment. I do however, find it regretful and obnoxious that the electorate does not punish this kind of obstructionism.
Spool, why are you being such a trollbag? The ACA getting voted down isn't a good thing if it's based on a fairly unfounded slippery slope argument which is literally the only argument that the antiACA attorneys are parroting.
It's fine if you don't like it, but you can't say thing like that and then be bewildered when you piss everyone off.
Why do they have to be 'parroting' the argument? You can't say things like that and not expect me to get my back up at least a little bit. I'm not really up for being held to a different standard of civility than everyone else.
I find the challenging argument compelling, and I have for a while. I don't think its a bad thing to trash the mandate on a principle that the government doesn't have that much power.
But the government needs that power. The free rider problem is one of the few problems we actually need a government for. If not a government for this, why not just have anarchy?
If we all lived in domes I'd expect the government to mandate dome insurance. Until we leave behind physical bodies we all need health insurance. Then we'd just need solar flare insurance I'm sure.
Edit: Thought I do agree with you on the toothless law is still the law argument. I don't want to be on the side that says you can ignore the law since it has no teeth (it can still be a bad law though, especially i.r.t. environmental regs, etc.).
I don't understand how you could celebrate the destruction of something that provides objectively better care for objectively less money.
Okay, maybe you think the law is technically unconstitutional. This should fill you with sadness that we have a constitution that is killing a good law, not make you happy.
If a law is unconstitutional, it's not a good law. This law is especially not good! It makes me very pleased that we can consider Constitutionality over efficacy in our nation. It's a far more important principle than anything we gain by upholding the individual mandate.
The law's intention and sentiment is good and, if you'll read some of my other posts in here you'll see that I generally agree with it. I hope we can come up with a better way to reach the same goal. A Constitutional way, a way that doesn't dramatically expand government regulatory power.
I want a good new law, not the new bad law or the old, bad system that preceded it.
So what if it expands government regulatory power, as long as those regulatory costs are outweighed by the benefits of the legislation? If you're looking at a law that could do a massive amount of public good and it costs negative money to implement it, you should think it's a good idea. You should strive for a constitution that allows good laws and disallows bad ones. To say "unconstitutional law -> bad law" is looking at the problem entirely backwards.
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't understand how you could celebrate the destruction of something that provides objectively better care for objectively less money.
Okay, maybe you think the law is technically unconstitutional. This should fill you with sadness that we have a constitution that is killing a good law, not make you happy.
If a law is unconstitutional, it's not a good law. This law is especially not good! It makes me very pleased that we can consider Constitutionality over efficacy in our nation. It's a far more important principle than anything we gain by upholding the individual mandate.
The law's intention and sentiment is good and, if you'll read some of my other posts in here you'll see that I generally agree with it. I hope we can come up with a better way to reach the same goal. A Constitutional way, a way that doesn't dramatically expand government regulatory power.
I want a good new law, not the new bad law or the old, bad system that preceded it.
So what if it expands government regulatory power, as long as those regulatory costs are outweighed by the benefits of the legislation? If you're looking at a law that could do a massive amount of public good and it costs negative money to implement it, you should think it's a good idea. You should strive for a constitution that allows good laws and disallows bad ones. To say "unconstitutional law -> bad law" is looking at the problem entirely backwards.
Welcome to the world of Strict Constructionists.
I still remain unconvinced by the unconstitutional arguments I've heard. They're not based on any kind of reality other than a very very very narrow read of the document.
I really can't even understand how anyone can argue with a straight face that the individual mandate doesn't easily fit under the Commerce Clause. The cost of healthcare is a huge drain on the national economy. A large part of that are the uninsured/uninsurable. The only possible way to remove this drain on the national economy (without completely dismantling the health insurance industry and instituting single-payer) is the individual mandate. If the SCOTUS wasn't just another detrimentally partisan branch of government, this case would have been laughed out of the court system a long time ago.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I really can't even understand how anyone can argue with a straight face that the individual mandate doesn't easily fit under the Commerce Clause. The cost of healthcare is a huge drain on the national economy. A large part of that are the uninsured/uninsurable. The only possible way to remove this drain on the national economy (without completely dismantling the health insurance industry and instituting single-payer) is the individual mandate. If the SCOTUS wasn't just another detrimentally partisan branch of government, this case would have been laughed out of the court system a long time ago.
The unconstitutional case is trying to prove that the government is forcing people into the market, which is true on such a technicality that it needs an electron microscope. In reality, you are in the healthcare market the minute you're born. Ginsberg called this out yesterday.
I really can't even understand how anyone can argue with a straight face that the individual mandate doesn't easily fit under the Commerce Clause. The cost of healthcare is a huge drain on the national economy. A large part of that are the uninsured/uninsurable. The only possible way to remove this drain on the national economy (without completely dismantling the health insurance industry and instituting single-payer) is the individual mandate. If the SCOTUS wasn't just another detrimentally partisan branch of government, this case would have been laughed out of the court system a long time ago.
The unconstitutional case is trying to prove that the government is forcing people into the market, which is true on such a technicality that it needs an electron microscope. In reality, you are in the healthcare market the minute you're born. Ginsberg called this out yesterday.
I'm going to move this over to the new ACA thread (and I'd suggest everyone else do the same).
I really can't even understand how anyone can argue with a straight face that the individual mandate doesn't easily fit under the Commerce Clause. The cost of healthcare is a huge drain on the national economy. A large part of that are the uninsured/uninsurable. The only possible way to remove this drain on the national economy (without completely dismantling the health insurance industry and instituting single-payer) is the individual mandate. If the SCOTUS wasn't just another detrimentally partisan branch of government, this case would have been laughed out of the court system a long time ago.
The unconstitutional case is trying to prove that the government is forcing people into the market, which is true on such a technicality that it needs an electron microscope. In reality, you are in the healthcare market the minute you're born. Ginsberg called this out yesterday.
You may be in the healthcare market, but the individual mandate attempts to regulate the health insurance market, and they are not the same thing. That's not a technicality at all!
I really can't even understand how anyone can argue with a straight face that the individual mandate doesn't easily fit under the Commerce Clause. The cost of healthcare is a huge drain on the national economy. A large part of that are the uninsured/uninsurable. The only possible way to remove this drain on the national economy (without completely dismantling the health insurance industry and instituting single-payer) is the individual mandate. If the SCOTUS wasn't just another detrimentally partisan branch of government, this case would have been laughed out of the court system a long time ago.
The unconstitutional case is trying to prove that the government is forcing people into the market, which is true on such a technicality that it needs an electron microscope. In reality, you are in the healthcare market the minute you're born. Ginsberg called this out yesterday.
You may be in the healthcare market, but the individual mandate attempts to regulate the health insurance market, and they are not the same thing. That's not a technicality at all!
Moved to the ACA thread, too, because this needs to be responded to.
I really can't even understand how anyone can argue with a straight face that the individual mandate doesn't easily fit under the Commerce Clause. The cost of healthcare is a huge drain on the national economy. A large part of that are the uninsured/uninsurable. The only possible way to remove this drain on the national economy (without completely dismantling the health insurance industry and instituting single-payer) is the individual mandate. If the SCOTUS wasn't just another detrimentally partisan branch of government, this case would have been laughed out of the court system a long time ago.
We cannot do it any other way, therefore the way we did it must be Constitutional?
Posts
While you may feel that the society has an obligation to provide reasonable and affordable health insurance to the masses, your party does not feel that way. The only Constitutional way to address this issue is to expand the pool of insured, which (unless we want to deficit spend like crazy) will result in a net increase in taxes. Seeing as how the party has been taken over by the Religious Fundamentalists and the Libertarians, tax increases are a non-starter. I don't see any traction within your party to make headway with this.
Also, the "Death Panels" rhetoric was disingenuous and dishonest; it did not reflect the better parts of your party's nature and you should not defend it. There are a number of reasonable ways to argue about the dangers of the expansion of government without resorting to lies and misinformation. To your last point here, that Republicans felt as though they were frozen out of the process - I would be more sympathetic to that position if it were actually true. The Obama administration actually attempted to facilitate talks with key republicans, reaching out to the both the leadership and the moderate conservatives. There was no interest in setting up a single-payer or universal health care system, since that would increase taxes. There was an attempt to decouple a few key provisions, the denying of health insurance to children with preexisting conditions for example. Republican's weren't interested in that either; even though it was a slam dunk for them legislatively, it would have been a "win" for the Obama administration.
What indicators have you seen from the Republican leadership, that would suggest they are interested in setting up a Universal Health Care system? Their publicly taken stance has been to argue for the removal of the social safety net, not the expansion of it. In order to setup some kind of broad, inclusive access to health care, the Federal Government will have to be involved. The Republican party isn't simply disinterested in this; they are adamantly against it.
Romney, based on his primary rhetoric, has been arguing up-and-down that this is a state's rights issue, and that states need to solve this on an individual level. Romney does not actually like Universal Health Care; he likes the individual mandate in his particular state of Massachusetts. He is not interested in setting up a federal level series of health care services.
Also government revenue is a combination of taxes and expenditures. Broadly slashing the budget must cut funding from social programs, if raising taxes is not possible. I'm not seeing how the party interested in reducing the deficit through the gutting of social programs is really all that interested in expanding government funding of health care.
That's the problem, in it's entirety. Without Federal involvement of some kind, there will be a great disparity of health care between the red and blue states. This strikes to the heart of the issue: is health care a right? You've expressed that you don't believe so, but that it's a duty of the government to provide, since they have the capacity to. That's reasonable; I tend to disagree, but I can understand your position. The reality though, is that the "sensible minimum guidelines" are the crux of the issue. With one side believing the sensible guideline are such that all Americans should have some rudimentary set of health care services which will not impoverish them (or keep them impoverished should they already be); while the other side believes that Federal Government should not be providing those services in the first place.
I don't see the current crop of Republican law makers healing that divide.
Oh fuck right off. If you can't debate without resorting to "you're an idiot, sad panda" go somewhere else.
One of the ways that the President can fuck with Congress is by not funding or enforcing regulations. This is a fact, stop living in the land of pedantry and join us in reality.
I don't think this case is going to be thrown out either, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Lawndart was also accurate when he said that if he chose not to buy health insurance, there really isn't much the government can do. You're living in some dream world where the government can just ignore statutes and laws but I've come to expect incoherent arguments from you, sadly enough.
I'd say that "fuck you" is the only proper response to "We demand you compromise so we won't have to. Oh, so you want to compromise on everything? Well, tough shit, you need to compromise on even more things we've just decided are really important, and we still offer nothing in return".
A proper, socialist, centralized system or utter meltdown are inevitable, the question is how much suffering the US can take before it veers panickingly to the former.
Pff. You don't get freebie snark about your AP learnin', man. Cracks like that will draw a response, so let's not get all indignant.
Anyway, I freely admit this is pedantic (and did so earlier, with apologies!), but Constitutionality is necessarily pedantic.
Regarding enforcement, I'm not suggesting that the government will or should ignore the law - I'm arguing that a) they will change it as soon as they possibly can to include real enforcement because they have no choice but to do so, and b) the lack of enforcement doesn't have any bearing on whether the effort to regulate the insurance market as the mandate does is Constitutional.
Are you going to try and argue that the regulation isn't regulating anything? If you want to take the position that Obama's signature legislative achievement amounts to "man, I really hope people buy insurance we will never force them to buy, because otherwise I've destroyed the healthcare system"...
... well, OK, but even I give him more credit than that.
So I stand by my previous invitation.
Also, try rereading my posts and maybe you'll find the answer to your question.
This is the single most delusional post I have ever read on these forums, and I've read conspiracy theory threads.
1) You don't legislate based on feelings, and if you did, you're assholes. You legislate based on reality. Of course, none of this is true, because the GOP's STATED GOAL has been to destroy Obama from the day he took office. They didn't make this a secret. They were not negotiating in good faith. So when after almost two fucking years the Democrats finally told them to fuck off they were obviously arrogant bullies who must be destroyed. It's nice how everything confirms the narrative you started with.
2) Based on what, exactly, from the post-war era, do you make this assumption? Nixon is the only Republican who even tried to address health care, and the Democrats arrogantly figured they could win the next election and get single payer so rejected his deal. That was 40 years ago. Since then they have "offered" plans every time a Democrat held office, only to obstruct and destroy and then conveniently forget about the issue when they have the Presidency or Congress. And no, Medicare Part D doesn't count.
3) Ah, the old Romney is just a liar and after we vote for his dishonest ass he'll get right to fixing health care because politicians totally don't govern how they campaign. Just like I'm sure the Republicans who were campaigning in the summer of 2010 would totally end up governing as moderates, they were just being totally batshit in order to win your totally batshit party's primary vote. But it will get better after we have power, totally! Just like George Bush was a moderate and not a conservative ideologue! Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice... can't get fooled again.
4) Why? The states would just take the money and do whatever the fuck they wanted with it. See: the tobacco settlement, the banking settlement, the balanced budget amendments in the state that basically require them to act this way. And more generally, a divided government will either a) have a Democratic President y'all will continue wanting to destroy above all else or b) have Republicans insist on their way or the highway. Just like always.
The fact that it's toothless right now is of no consequence when talking about Constitutionality or standing, or at least that's the safe bet wrt Monday's argument.
Those two points are the whole of what I'm saying on this tangent.
Its really beside the point though, since that's not going to be a reason the law is either upheld our struck down.
SCOTUS may uphold the mandate because they can't figure out what to do with the rest of the law if they strike it down. I don't buy that argument, but what happens if they rule the mandate unconstitutional will be interesting.
The system works!
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
So his skill with hypotheticals or reality is... not the best.
You appear to be neglecting the possibility that if a law is unconstitutional, it's the Constitution that is not good.
Since I am being pedantic already, I'll say: no.
If a law is unconstutional, I is a bad law, period.
If a good idea cannot be implemented constitutionally, we should amend the constitution.
What do you man by bad law
I'm snickering at your (probably accidental) implied statement here... That the ACA's goal is to fuck us all.
It's fine if you don't like it, but you can't say thing like that and then be bewildered when you piss everyone off.
Well, we can't amend it. So, we either have America doomed to be a shitty country forever, or we abuse the ever-loving crap out of the Interstate Commerce and General Welfare clauses. I choose the latter.
I mean they won't, but if the mandate is unconstitutional, so are all of those things for the same reason
They don't have individual mandates.
Well, they do, but you know, it's not the same because stuff
If this law is found to be unconstitutional here's why:
1.) Obama is elected.
2.) The GOP proclaims for all the world to remember that their only goal is to make him a one term president.
3.) They spend the next three and a half years undermining the president and the Democrats with little effort or care given to actual governance of the nation.
4.) One of these efforts is the Affordable Care Act. This act is stonewalled by the Republicans at every turn, the GOP forces a nerfed law through Congress.
5.) Immediately, the GOP sues the government to get the law considered unconstitutional, citing provisions that their own intransigence created.
Anybody else see the problem here?
I find the challenging argument compelling, and I have for a while. I don't think its a bad thing to trash the mandate on a principle that the government doesn't have that much power.
They want to game the system. Legally, they are allowed to do so. If we don't like it, our recourse is to elect better representation. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be path that we are on at the moment. I do however, find it regretful and obnoxious that the electorate does not punish this kind of obstructionism.
But the government needs that power. The free rider problem is one of the few problems we actually need a government for. If not a government for this, why not just have anarchy?
If we all lived in domes I'd expect the government to mandate dome insurance. Until we leave behind physical bodies we all need health insurance. Then we'd just need solar flare insurance I'm sure.
Edit: Thought I do agree with you on the toothless law is still the law argument. I don't want to be on the side that says you can ignore the law since it has no teeth (it can still be a bad law though, especially i.r.t. environmental regs, etc.).
So what if it expands government regulatory power, as long as those regulatory costs are outweighed by the benefits of the legislation? If you're looking at a law that could do a massive amount of public good and it costs negative money to implement it, you should think it's a good idea. You should strive for a constitution that allows good laws and disallows bad ones. To say "unconstitutional law -> bad law" is looking at the problem entirely backwards.
Welcome to the world of Strict Constructionists.
I still remain unconvinced by the unconstitutional arguments I've heard. They're not based on any kind of reality other than a very very very narrow read of the document.
The unconstitutional case is trying to prove that the government is forcing people into the market, which is true on such a technicality that it needs an electron microscope. In reality, you are in the healthcare market the minute you're born. Ginsberg called this out yesterday.
I'm going to move this over to the new ACA thread (and I'd suggest everyone else do the same).
You may be in the healthcare market, but the individual mandate attempts to regulate the health insurance market, and they are not the same thing. That's not a technicality at all!
Moved to the ACA thread, too, because this needs to be responded to.
We cannot do it any other way, therefore the way we did it must be Constitutional?