Is GOP Health Care Bill a Disaster? No (This explains it)

[Jazzhead]

The insurance-employment link is said to be rooted in the WWII wage freeze. Companies couldn't compete for talent with salary so they went for benefits.

I believe that's correct.

[Jazzhead]

Wait a minute me bucko. I thought it was wrong to legislate Christian morals and standards. Just like Abortion. Which is it?

Not sure I understand your point.   Regulation of the insurance market is hardly the same thing as the state coercing a woman to reproduce.   The latter is the job of religion, not the state.   You'd think that eternal damnation would be enough, without the intercession of the state.   

[Suppressed]

   No DEM will ever vote for this, I should have been clearer @Suppressed, I meant through Reconciliation where only 51 votes is required.  If Repeal could be handled through Reconciliation, not sure.

I don't know that straight repeal would pass even with 51, @corbe.

[bolobaby]

"In particular, a full repeal of Obamacare must get through the Senate, which means it must get 60 votes. "

Bzzt.

They could easily go nuclear, just like the Dems did, and pass it under reconciliation or rules change on a simple majority.

So, stop the 60 vote lie.

[Jazzhead]

I don't know that straight repeal would pass even with 51.

It wouldn't.  The people don't want a straight repeal, and Senators know that full well. 

[bolobaby]

So what should be done with such folks? Let them die?   

There but for the grace of God go you and I, hoodat.       

@Jazzhead

Here's a few ideas:

1. Maybe they should plan, like the rest of us. Get insurance BEFORE they are sick. That's the way it is supposed to work. The "let them die?" question is akin to asking, "Well, what should we do with this retiree who didn't plan for retirement? Let them live in poverty?"

2. Charity-care is alive and well. There are many organizations, like St Jude, that will provide free health care to specific groups of people. This is something conservatives call "a private solution." If you are worried about people dying, then give to a charity-care organization.

3. Work on the core problem around health care costs - including tort reform - so that people can cover many costs without the need for "insurance," which is simply becoming synonymous with "health care plan."

4. Yep. Let them die. If none of the solutions above work, then people may die. Guess what - newsflash - people die every day. Life is not without risks. It is not the government's responsibility to remove all risk from your life. If you are worried about risk, see #1 and get insurance before it is a problem. If you didn't plan, well - you assumed the risk and lost.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Not sure I understand your point.   Regulation of the insurance market is hardly the same thing as the state coercing a woman to reproduce.   The latter is the job of religion, not the state.   You'd think that eternal damnation would be enough, without the intercession of the state.

You were using religion as your argument for that regulation. That seems rather arbitrary. Especially since as we have discussed on other threads we both hold firmly to the ideal of Christian charity, but not government coercion to achieve it.

[INVAR]

(Jazzhead)You were using religion as your argument for that regulation. That seems rather arbitrary. Especially since as we have discussed on other threads we both hold firmly to the ideal of Christian charity, but not government coercion to achieve it.

Don't let him fool you.

His arguments on everything from Healthcare, Abortion, Islam and self-defense reveal that his religion is Liberal Socialism and his church is the government.

He is here to criticize Conservatism and indoctrinate us into liberalism based on his posting history.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Don't let him fool you.

His arguments on everything from Healthcare, Abortion, Islam and self-defense reveal that his religion is Liberal Socialism and his church is the government.

He is here to criticize Conservatism and indoctrinate us into liberalism based on his posting history.

I'll say this much. If everybody was as confident in their arguments as they say they are they could apply fewer labels. Just my dos centavos.

[txradioguy]

he urges conservatives to take a deep breath and understand the constraints that Congressional Republicans are working under.

That right there is a Mitch McConnell authored statement if I've ever heard one.

[INVAR]

I'll say this much. If everybody was as confident in their arguments as they say they are they could apply fewer labels. Just my dos centavos.

We have lost the ability of calling things what they are based on plain facts so as to be politically correct and uber-sensitive in this corrupted and wicked society.

Liberalism is liberalism.  Statism is Statism.  Evil is evil.  Conservatism is Conservatism, even when others argue to the contrary.

Identifying what those principles are based on the arguments and ideas expressed is precisely necessary in this day and age.

[txradioguy]

Bollocks.

"We can't do it because we don't have the House" - so the voters give them the House.
"We can't do it because we don't have the Senate" - so the voters give them the Senate.
"We can't do it because we don't have the Presidency." - so the voters give them the Presidency.
"We can't do it because ... " - Enough is Effing enough. Do it.

Hooah!

[txradioguy]

I'll say this much. If everybody was as confident in their arguments as they say they are they could apply fewer labels. Just my dos centavos.

I'm very confident in my arguments...have been since the first time this person and I crossed paths.

But at a certain point in the debate when talking points run out...those confident in said arguments get labeled intolerant and bigoted.

Sometimes you just have enough and need to push back.

[Jazzhead]

Conservatism is Conservatism, even when others argue to the contrary.

It is hardly controversial that there are several strands of conservatism.   It is simply untrue that all conservative must be social conservatives.    In some respects, social conservatives rely on the government gun to enforce their values as much as the typical liberal does.   Heck, I'd argue that social conservatives are only conservative on the margin.   Religion - a form of tribalism - has never been especially compatible with individual liberty. 

[txradioguy]

It is hardly controversial that there are several strands of conservatism.   It is simply untrue that all conservative must be social conservatives.    In some respects, social conservatives rely on the government gun to enforce their values as much as the typical liberal does.   Heck, I'd argue that social conservatives are only conservative on the margin.   Religion - a form of tribalism - has never been especially compatible with individual liberty.

Bless your heart

[Hoodat]

I'm very confident in my arguments...have been since the first time this person and I crossed paths.

But at a certain point in the debate when talking points run out...those confident in said arguments get labeled intolerant and bigoted.

Sometimes you just have enough and need to push back.

Ditto.  First, there was the 180 on mandates.  It is bad enough to claim the GOP bill doesn't have mandates, and subsequently defending the mandates it has.  But the ' state coercing women to reproduce' comment reveals a complete disregard for truth.

[Suppressed]

As opposed to involuntary 'charity'?

I take it you oppose FEMA and federal disaster assistance.

People seem fine dumping costs of care involuntarily onto hospitals.  Where is the morality in that?

Why should private charities pick up the burden of the entire society?  Who do you blame when someone dies in the street -- are you just assuming the private charity should have cared for the person?  Isn't that as bad, throwing costs onto another?

I might not agree with @Jazzhead on many things, but it's disturbing that some on the thread can't see that he brings up valid concerns.

@Hoodat

[Suppressed]

It wouldn't.  The people don't want a straight repeal, and Senators know that full well.

They don't seem to get that The Left compromised when it was their turn. We got Obamacare, not single-payer.  But instead of tearing each other apart, they took what they could get through all their Senators, recognizing that a party majority doesn't mean a wholly ideologically extreme one.

[Sanguine]

We have lost the ability of calling things what they are based on plain facts so as to be politically correct and uber-sensitive in this corrupted and wicked society.

Liberalism is liberalism.  Statism is Statism.  Evil is evil.  Conservatism is Conservatism, even when others argue to the contrary.

Identifying what those principles are based on the arguments and ideas expressed is precisely necessary in this day and age.

Invar, are you talking about liberalism or leftism?

[txradioguy]

...as Congress’s attorneys in the Congressional Research Service and Congressional Budget Office advised long before the Act was passed into law, the notion of Congress having the power under the Commerce Clause to directly impose an individual mandate to purchase health care insurance is “novel” and “unprecedented.” Never before has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private company (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States.

<snip>

The threshold question that must be addressed is whether activity is required before Congress can exercise its power under the Commerce Clause. Commerce Clause jurisprudence has contracted and expanded (and contracted and expanded again) during our nation’s development. But, in every one of those instances — in both the contractive and expansive — there has always been clear and inarguable activity, from exerting control over and using navigable waters (Gibbons) to growing or consuming marijuana (Raich). The Supreme Court has never been called upon to consider if “activity” is required.

The defendants contend, however, that despite the inarguable presence of activity in every Supreme Court case to date, activity is not required under the Commerce Clause. In fact, they go so far as to suggest that to impose such a requirement would be bold and radical. According to the defendants, because the Supreme Court has never identified a distinction between activity and inactivity as a limitation on Congress’s commerce power, to hold otherwise would “break new legal ground” and be “novel” and “unprecedented.” First, it is interesting that the defendants — apparently believing the best defense is a good offense — would use the words “novel” and “unprecedented,” since those are the exact same words that the CRS and CBO used to describe the individual mandate before it became law.

Furthermore, there is a simple and rather obvious reason why the Supreme Court has never distinguished between activity and inactivity before: it has not been called upon to consider the issue because, until now, Congress had never attempted to exercise its Commerce Clause power in such a way before. In every Supreme Court case decided thus far, Congress was not seeking to regulate, under its commerce power, something that could even arguably be said to be “passive inactivity.”


It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce,” it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain, for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” (Lopez), and we would have a Constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended.

Having found that “activity” is an indispensable part [of] the Commerce Clause analysis, the constitutionality of the individual mandate will turn on whether the failure to buy health insurance is “activity.” Preliminarily, based solely on a plain reading of the Act itself (and a commonsense interpretation of the word “activity” and its absence), I must agree with the plaintiffs’ contention that the individual mandate regulates inactivity. Section 1501 states in relevant part: “If an applicable individual fails to [buy health insurance], there is hereby imposed a penalty.” By its very own terms, therefore, the statute applies to a person who does not buy the government-approved insurance; that is, a person who “fails” to act pursuant to the congressional dictate.

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/marchapril-2011/obamacare-unconstitutional

[Jazzhead]

Ditto.  First, there was the 180 on mandates.  It is bad enough to claim the GOP bill doesn't have mandates, and subsequently defending the mandates it has.  But the ' state coercing women to reproduce' comment reveals a complete disregard for truth.

I was referring, of course, to the individual and employer mandates that conservatives are so worked up about.  And  how does a governmental prohibition on abortion not effectively coerce women to reproduce?   

 Your arguments would be more effective without the fundamental dishonesty you display.   

[Jazzhead]

They don't seem to get that The Left compromised when it was their turn. We got Obamacare, not single-payer.  But instead of tearing each other apart, they took what they could get through all their Senators, recognizing that a party majority doesn't mean a wholly ideologically extreme one.

Good point. 

[Sanguine]

I take it you oppose FEMA and federal disaster assistance.

People seem fine dumping costs of care involuntarily onto hospitals.  Where is the morality in that?

Why should private charities pick up the burden of the entire society?  Who do you blame when someone dies in the street -- are you just assuming the private charity should have cared for the person?  Isn't that as bad, throwing costs onto another?

I might not agree with @Jazzhead on many things, but it's disturbing that some on the thread can't see that he brings up valid concerns.

@Hoodat

Funny thing that FEMA.  Let me give you an example: I had a storm at the house sometime back, and I and a lot of other people had a significant amount of damage.  Cost me quite a bit to get everything repaired: water, electricity, roofs, rafters, trees down, etc.  So, because it didn't fall under FEMA, I and my neighbors got to pay for our own damage while continuing to support FEMA and other federal disaster assistance. 

So, while I do think that the feds have a place in emergencies like helping with rescue efforts and such, no, I don't think individuals should receive taxpayers money for personal losses.

[INVAR]

I'm very confident in my arguments...have been since the first time this person and I crossed paths.

But at a certain point in the debate when talking points run out...those confident in said arguments get labeled intolerant and bigoted.

Sometimes you just have enough and need to push back.

Or as the Apostle Paul stated plainly - ' little leaven, leavens the entire lump'.

You let Liberalism go unchallenged and stirred into the dough because it is argued to be 'compassion and tolerance', the entire place becomes a cesspool of Liberalism.

[INVAR]

Invar, are you talking about liberalism or leftism?

As if there is a difference these days?

And no, I'm not talking 'classical Liberalism' in the vein of The Enlightenment.