Raising the US debt ceiling

[bush_cheney2004]

Bad idea or not that is not how the legal system in the US should work. That was the problem with the 11th's ruling when read. Instead of ruling on the law they ruled on the idea. I hope we see this go en blanc and have the whole court rule on it.

But that was good enough for the civil rights movement, right? The state cannot make us buy broccoli or health club memberships for life either.

[punked]

But that was good enough for the civil rights movement, right? The state cannot make us buy broccoli or health club memberships for life either.

But it can regulate inter state commerce for the good of the whole country. That is the commerce clause which the 11th court didn't address at all.

Edited August 13, 2011 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

But it can regulate inter state commerce for the good of the whole country. That is the commerce clause which the 11th court didn't address at all.

That's only if/when people actually buy the insurance product. You can't force people to buy broccoli from another state.

[punked]

That's only if/when people actually buy the insurance product. You can't force people to buy broccoli from another state.

How do you figure in Wickard v. Filburn they were able to make a farmer on their own land burn crops that were grown in excess of what the government allowed because and I quote the ruling "Congress could regulate anything that exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." So you are telling me the government can make someone burn their crops because it had an effect on the economy but not buy Health insurance? Health care is 20% of GDP, it has an effect on the economy.

You might disagree with the commerce clause but it is what it is and these judges are legislating from the bench.

Edited August 13, 2011 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

So you are telling me the government can make someone burn their crops because it had an effect on the economy but not buy Health insurance? Health care is 20% of GDP, it has an effect on the economy.

The farmer was already engaged in commerce. See the difference?

You might disagree with the commerce clause but it is what it is and these judges are legislating from the bench.

The Commerce Clause has limits and this ruling will be affirmed by the SCOTUS.

[punked]

The farmer was already engaged in commerce. See the difference?

Nope the farmer actually wanted to grow the crop only for himself not to be sold.

The Commerce Clause has limits and this ruling will be affirmed by the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS has already said what the Commerce Clause says. The 11th chose to ignore it which is why they didn't address the Commerce Clause.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nope the farmer actually wanted to grow the crop only for himself not to be sold.

Without seed, fertilizer, machinery, implements, hired labor, loans, or county services? Sure he did....

SCOTUS has already said what the Commerce Clause says. The 11th chose to ignore it which is why they didn't address the Commerce Clause.

Yours is an academic exercise....this issue was dead on arrival an Obama knew it, but it was good enough to shut up progressives who wanted a public option. Americans will not stand for such nonsense.

[punked]

Without seed, fertilizer, machinery, implements, hired labor, loans, or county services? Sure he did....

It was 1942 and his argument was he would do all the work himself and keep the crops for just him. It was a no go. Please go read up on the case it pretty much defined the Commerce clause.

I fail to see how the government can tell a farmer he can or can't buy or plant seed yet can't tell a person they need health care. That is the whole argument you can't have it one way then the other with out a change in the law.

Yours is an academic exercise....this issue was dead on arrival an Obama knew it, but it was good enough to shut up progressives who wanted a public option. Americans will not stand for such nonsense.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Either the justices are going to legislate from the bench or they are going to go with what has been the president for the last 70 years. That is the argument considering in the 11th the commerce clause wasn't the reason they ruled against it then they are choosing to legislate from the bench.

[Bonam]

I fail to see how the government can tell a farmer he can or can't buy or plant seed yet can't tell a person they need health care. That is the whole argument you can't have it one way then the other with out a change in the law.

Telling someone he can't buy something is very different from telling someone he must buy something. In fact, they are complete opposites. One does not set precedent for the other.

[bush_cheney2004]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Either the justices are going to legislate from the bench or they are going to go with what has been the president for the last 70 years. That is the argument considering in the 11th the commerce clause wasn't the reason they ruled against it then they are choosing to legislate from the bench.

Then let them legislate as needed....the Congress is also in hot pursuit of a change because of mistakes made in the legislation. Government can't force citizens to engage in commerce.

[punked]

Telling someone he can't buy something is very different from telling someone he must buy something. In fact, they are complete opposites. One does not set precedent for the other.

Make that argument in terms of the Commerce clause please.

[punked]

Then let them legislate as needed....the Congress is also in hot pursuit of a change because of mistakes made in the legislation. Government can't force citizens to engage in commerce.

That might be true if those citizens would not cost the government and other people anything. However everyone will need health care at some point in their lives if they have no insurance and no money then others are forced to pay for that person. Thus the government is forcing the citizens to pay for the uninsured. Damned if you do Damned if you don't.

The government isn't forcing citizens to engage in commerce nature is. Everyone will need health care at some point and time. That is not the governments fault.

Edited August 13, 2011 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

That might be true if those citizens would not cost the government and other people anything. However everyone will need health care at some point in their lives if they have no insurance and no money then others are forced to pay for that person. Thus the government is forcing the citizens to pay for the uninsured. Damned if you do Damned if you don't.

But many do have money and can pay the bill. Others are not forced to pay anything. You are missing the fundamental element here...liberty and voluntary engagement in commerce.

Everyone does not require health care at some point and time. Health care is not a right.

Edited August 13, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[punked]

But many do have money and can pay the bill. Others are not forced to pay anything. You are missing the fundamental element here...liberty and voluntary engagement in commerce.

Everyone does not require health care at some point and time.

So if the government does like many provinces do with car insurance and say if you put aside say 500,000 dollars you don't have to buy insurance then would it be ok?

Again Everyone in the US at some point time will be engaged in the commerce of health care. That isn't the governments fault.

[Bonam]

So if the government does like many provinces do with car insurance and say if you put aside say 500,000 dollars you don't have to buy insurance then would it be ok?

It would make it a tad more defensible in a debate, but no more legal. If the government doesn't have the power to force people to buy something, adding an exception for millionaires doesn't give it that power.

[punked]

It would make it a tad more defensible in a debate, but no more legal. If the government doesn't have the power to force people to buy something, adding an exception for millionaires doesn't give it that power.

Again the government isn't forcing you to buy health care everyone needs health care at some point in their lives they are making sure you pay your bill so others don't buy you health care.

[bush_cheney2004]

So if the government does like many provinces do with car insurance and say if you put aside say 500,000 dollars you don't have to buy insurance then would it be ok?

The car insurance parallel fails because no one is required to own a motor vehicle.

Again Everyone in the US at some point time will be engaged in the commerce of health care. That isn't the governments fault.

But they are not required to do so....health care services used to be commerce between a provider and a patient, not involving the frinkin government. My parents paid in cash when services were rendered.

[punked]

The car insurance parallel fails because no one is required to own a motor vehicle.

I am not saying they are the same, I am saying if the government did that to make sure you pay for your health care would that solve your issue with it?

But they are not required to do so....health care services used to be commerce between a provider and a patient, not involving the frinkin government. My parents paid in cash when services were rendered.

What happens when someone can't afford the service BC? They die?

Edited August 13, 2011 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

I am not saying they are the same, I am saying if the government did that to make sure you pay for your health care would that solve your issue with it?

Of course not....terms of commerce are between me and my provider, not the government.

What happens when someone can't afford the service BC? They die?

News flash: We are all going to die with or without health care.

[punked]

Of course not....terms of commerce are between me and my provider, not the government.

News flash: We are all going to die with or without health care.

No that isn't the question someone is having a heart attack but has nothing in their bank account. DO YOU LET THEM DIE?

[Bonam]

Again the government isn't forcing you to buy health care everyone needs health care at some point in their lives they are making sure you pay your bill so others don't buy you health care.

Says who? One might well make it through life having only paid out of pocket for health care, with or without having a huge account set aside.

[pinko]

It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court addresses this issue nowithstanding the opinions offered here.

[bush_cheney2004]

No that isn't the question someone is having a heart attack but has nothing in their bank account. DO YOU LET THEM DIE?

Straw man...even those with huge bank accounts die from heart attacks.

[punked]

Straw man...even those with huge bank accounts die from heart attacks.

Do you give them health care and force everyone to pay for it? Or do you let them die BC? That is the underlaying issue here. You refuse to address it. In your America do you solve the problem by making everyone pay up front for health care and have them refused if they don't?

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you give them health care and force everyone to pay for it? Or do you let them die BC? That is the underlaying issue here. You refuse to address it.

Nonsense...you provide customary services and bill them for it. If they can't pay, they can declare bankruptcy and any creditors will be discharged according to law. Health care is just like any other product or service.

In your America do you solve the problem by making everyone pay up front for health care and have them refused if they don't?

NO, they can buy insurance if they wish or take their chances. But you can't make that choice for them with government tyranny.