"The Federal Government Can Do Most Anything in This Country"?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oeBLAqyiJOY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oeBLAqyiJOY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

and if i never hit anyone. . I have thrown away money all my life

Rocket River

 

I doubt if Rep. Stark had a chance to think about it he probably wouldn't have phrased things the way he did.

It might not be the primary intent of the Founders but part of the genius of the Constitution was to allow it to be amended and to also use deliberately vague language. The Founders understood they couldn't predict the future and I highly doubt a strict constructionist reading of the Constitution, limited to its original text and Bill of Rights, would function for a country of 350 million that has nuclear weapons and things like the Internet.

I can understand that you would find this distressing I think the flexibility of the Constitution is necessary for the growth and stability of the US as a nation.

True I don't believe in fetishizing the document and the Founders. It has its problem but that is why it can be amended and is subject to interpretation. I mean why have a Judicial branch if it wasn't.

I agree that it can be stretched pretty far in regard to things like the Commerce Clause which is why I think the document needs to be taken as whole along with practical realities. For example I strongly question the use of the Commerce and Welfare clause for things like establishing No-Drug zones around schools.

In regard to health care since it is something already with aspects that pass between and beyond the states I don't see it as much of a stretch to apply the commerce clause to it besides the general welfare clause.

That said in regard for citizens to purchase a private product I can agree that does violate a principle of absolute liberty but at the same time governments already force people to purchase private products such as home and auto insurance. Also on a practical basis doctors and hospitals are compelled already to provide emergency medical service even for free under the Hippocractic Oath. As long as that is the situation it seems like the practical solution for that is to see that as many people as possible have health insurance.

 

I believe in Texas you have the right to not carry insurance as long as you have financial responsibility money set aside and carry proof of it with you. That way you don't have to throw away money your entire life.

 

The problem with any type of insurance and socialization of risk is it raises the prices for everyone. As people don't see the cost of the repair or medical procedure they tend to use the services and act more aggressively (driving or living) as they feel their 'insurance' protects them.

Also having that inability to feel every dollar spent on healthcare or auto repairs, the prices are driven up and the service falls significantly.

So because people have insurance they drive and live more aggressively and don't take care of themselves as much as they feel they're 'covered'. It also leads to inflated prices as those without insurance are the minority and the cash bills are enormous (whereas an insurance company doesn't pay all the billed due to markdowns etc.).

So the people that drive safer and better and those that live healthier and take care of themselves more pay a much higher rate than their cost.

 

It's not illegal to exist without car insurance. It's illegal to drive without car insurance.

 

Just as auto insurance helps you in driving, assisting in case of things such as accidents, damages, etc. health insurance assists you in existing such as injuries, illness, etc.

 

It should be for the individual to decide if it's worth purchasing.

The alternative, force, is immoral.

 

I you decided to forgo health insurance and agreed to not accept health services that would be one thing. But you'd be there after the car wreck with your arm hanging by a sinew bleeding out and you would beg for help you couldn't pay for.

 

Except that staying healthy doesn't work that way as our own system shows. One of the reasons why we have such high medical expenses is that many people don't take care of problems when they show up but only go to the emergency room, which is the most expensive option of basic medical care. People also don't go take advantage of preventive care. The analogy to your car would be like if you didn't change your oil because you didn't want to pay for the oil changes and just went to the mechanic when your engine got fried.

At the same time you are missing the point of insurance which is to spread out the cost. That way you aren't don't end up bearing solely the costs of a very expensive procedure. If we didn't have insurance you might not be saving from having to pay for your premuim but you might still spend much much more when you need a surgery.

I strongly doubt that people actually drive more aggressively because of auto insurance and if you have evidence of that I would like to see it.

Also most auto insurance offers good drivers discounts as well as most health insurance offers discounts for doing things like not smoking. If insurance worked the way you are describing it then that wouldn't be the case.

 

Except that you are forgetting that doctors and hospitals are already obligated to provide emergency medical service. I can understand the argument for freedom but the problem is that this isn't in a vacuum. You might say it is my freedom to not purchase health insurance but at the point where you might need emergency care that you can't afford you are a charity case dependent upon the moral obligation of doctors.

One reason why our medical costs and insurance are so high is that the costs of the uninsured are borne by the rest of us. Its essentially a defacto public option. So yes I agree that it is an imposition of absolute freedom but at the moment that even in Randian terms is immoral where people can benefit from it without paying in.

 

Damn, I did not know Clinton do all of that, he's a very very bad man, if he's eligible to run again, I'd vote for him!

 

A good argument for removing this as a legal obligation.

 

My only problem with the conservative view on universal health care is this.

Ok, don't give poor people (read minorities) free health care. Ok, I would be fine with that. Why should people subsidize the poor with their tax dollars or higher premiums when it's already so expense and hard to make ends meet. Even if it actually lower's cost because hospitals will treat them in the ER which is far more expensive (and the costs are passed on to us anyway)...ok, well, that's a good reason to give the poor health care actually. Preventive care that is.

But at some point, people are going to die. I mean, why should I help pay for some 65 year old who drank their liver to pickleness??? Or a smoker? Or a fatso? Why subsidize any of them?

Why not just allow insurance companies to discriminate and create a policy for healthy people 20-40 or whatever that want lower premiums? I don't smoke. I drink moderately, and I excercise 5 times a week. But I pay a lot of insurance even though all I get is allergy shots one a month. Other than that I never see a doctor.

So why pay for an of yall? You are all raising my premiums - get off my insurance policy. Or at least pass laws that let me get insurance with other healthy people. We should be free to make our own insurance pools.

No fatso, no smokes, no drug users, no one over 45, and no one poor. I mean, in all seriousness, wouldn't we be better off letting that 78 year old sickly dude pass away and keep the money in our pockets? It's a lot of money, and it's unnatural to extend the life of someone.

Health care is not a right. It's a thing you're lucky to have. Back in the day, you got sick, you die. Survival of the fittest. And we don't have enough doctors anyway to treat everyone.

So I think we should just let people die of whatever is going on. It's not my fault their bodies are not up to the task at hand.

 

A take it then you would be for having a situation that anyone who couldn't pay for even emergency medical services would be left to die.

 

If that were the only way things were, maybe. But my insurance drives up your premiums too. I have type 1 diabetes. I exercise, don't smoke, all of that too, but my condition has nothing to do with any life choice that I made. It was something that I was going to get no matter what I did or didn't do.

Yet I'm not sick. As long as I keep it under control I'm not a 78 year old sickly dude. I'm young, healthy, active, playing softball, surfing, baseball, basketball, camping, hiking, all kinds of stuff. Health insurance allows me to have a good quality of life. I have a job providing a valuable service teaching students in Title I school. It's not as if the money goes to keep someone alive who was neglectful of their health, and isn't giving anything back to society.

I would happily pay a little more so that others can live and enjoy a good quality of life.

But if I were to lose my job, without this bill, no insurance company would have me. My quality of life would go down, and I would die prematurely.

That's my response to their conservative view.

 

Even with things that are within the states' responsibilities, the Feds can still bribe/blackmail to get their own way, such as witholding interstate construction from states that didn't raise the drinking age to 21.

 

Following the landmark decision in Wickard v. Filburn, which was reaffirmed in Raich, the government can regulate pretty much anything under the commerce clause combined with the necessary and proper clause. Worst. Supreme Court. Decision. EVER!!!