The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

[jtmedli]

At any rate, as some have already pointed out, this is a republic, not a pure democracy, so if our representatives are going off the reservation, then it's the fault of the voters and they should be defeated during the next election. The people reap what they sow, and if the general public is too stupid or lazy or distracted by what Paris Hilton is wearing to get involved in the issues, then they deserve the crappy system of socialized medicine that is bearing down on them like a freight train.

Brett

I don't always agree with you, Brett, but when I do...I really really do. I fully agree that people deserve what is coming and they'll get it in it's full fury.

 

[DukeAndrewJ]

Like what, the federal income tax? What other examples/issues are to talking about?

I was referring mainly to the arguments presented earlier that seemed to focus more on explaining why the Constitution is outdated rather than proving the Constitutionality of government programs. If it is outdated, change it. If not, follow it. We have gotten into specific programs before, and I think in the end, I just don't take as loose an approach to the 'general welfare' clause as some more liberal folks. To stick with the example at hand, I don't think the Federal government should have the power to mandate or provide health insurance to the people under the guise of general welfare. Personally, I find it condescending that they think they know more about what is good for me than I do.

How do we know they don't? Please don't cite the latest FOX Opinion Dynamics or CNN poll. Besides, we can't determine whether the people support "this bill" until the bill in question is in its final form, so it's a little premature to be declaring what the will of the people is.

Then what poll is satisfactory to you? I have seen none in which a majority favor the bill. Are Gallup or Quinnipiac acceptable?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...are-reform-bill-advances-public-support-slips
You are right that people have not seen it in its final form. But we have seen enough of it, and we have certainly seen the backroom deals that have gone on to get it passed.

At any rate, as some have already pointed out, this is a republic, not a pure democracy, so if our representatives are going off the reservation, then it's the fault of the voters and they should be defeated during the next election. The people reap what they sow, and if the general public is too stupid or lazy or distracted by what Paris Hilton is wearing to get involved in the issues, then they deserve the crappy system of socialized medicine that is bearing down on them like a freight train.
Brett

This I agree with.

 

[Brett327]

I don't think the Federal government should have the power to mandate or provide health insurance to the people under the guise of general welfare.

Fair enough. So, where do you draw the line? How about the FAA and our federally operated air traffic control system? Can you justify an ATC system imposed on the people under the guise of general welfare? What about other federal agencies like NASA, or NOAA? Are they extraconsitutional as well?

Whatever your answer, I find it interesting that, unlike all the lay-people such as us who deem themselves qualified to interpret the founders and the intent of their documents, the people who have been specifically appointed to be knowledgeable about such things (SCOTUS) have historically given very broad latitude in their reading of the general welfare clause. I wonder why that is? I wonder why so many people want to simply toss out 200 years of carefully considered case law and legal precedent simply because they, as lay-people, don't happen to share the opinion of the learned body of SCOTUS.

We wouldn't ask a janitor for his opinion on what surgical techniques might be best to remove a brain tumor and you probably wouldn't hire a Catholic priest to defend you at your murder trial. I know Steve insists that you don't have to be an attorney to understand the law - perhaps not. I'm a pretty sharp guy when it comes to medical science, but I'm betting that he wouldn't let me operate on his kid's brain tumor.

Just sayin'

Brett

 

[DukeAndrewJ]

Fair enough. So, where do you draw the line? How about the FAA and our federally operated air traffic control system? Can you justify an ATC system imposed on the people under the guise of general welfare? What about other federal agencies like NASA, or NOAA? Are they extraconsitutional as well?

I will try to avoid commenting on programs with which I am completely ignorant with regards to scope and history. So sorry, I can't offer my law-man's opinion on these.

But what I do believe is different about the health care bill (at least the state it is in now), is the requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance. This, I believe, is an unprecedented intrusion into the lives of Americans. Yes, you must buy car insurance to drive a car, but you don't have to drive. But now, just for existing as a citizen in this country, we could be forced to buy health insurance? Moreover, the final product may very well dictate the terms of the insurance available for me to purchase. So they make the product, and tell me I have no choice but to buy it.

I wonder why so many people want to simply toss out 200 years of carefully considered case law and legal precedent simply because they, as lay-people, don't happen to share the opinion of the learned body of SCOTUS.

I think you answered your own quesiton.

We wouldn't ask a janitor for his opinion on what surgical techniques might be best to remove a brain tumor and you probably wouldn't hire a Catholic priest to defend you at your murder trial. I know Steve insists that you don't have to be an attorney to understand the law - perhaps not. I'm a pretty sharp guy when it comes to medical science, but I'm betting that he wouldn't let me operate on his kid's brain tumor.

Just sayin'

Brett

It's true you don't ask a janitor for surgical advice, but even a janitor can tell you if a surgeon botches his operation.

And if socialized medicine does come, and the doctor shortage gets worse, you just might be able to open your own practice....

 

[exhelodrvr]

Fair enough. So, where do you draw the line? How about the FAA and our federally operated air traffic control system? Can you justify an ATC system imposed on the people under the guise of general welfare? What about other federal agencies like NASA, or NOAA? Are they extraconsitutional as well?

Whatever your answer, I find it interesting that, unlike all the lay-people such as us who deem themselves qualified to interpret the founders and the intent of their documents, the people who have been specifically appointed to be knowledgeable about such things (SCOTUS) have historically given very broad latitude in their reading of the general welfare clause. I wonder why that is? I wonder why so many people want to simply toss out 200 years of carefully considered case law and legal precedent simply because they, as lay-people, don't happen to share the opinion of the learned body of SCOTUS.

We wouldn't ask a janitor for his opinion on what surgical techniques might be best to remove a brain tumor and you probably wouldn't hire a Catholic priest to defend you at your murder trial. I know Steve insists that you don't have to be an attorney to understand the law - perhaps not. I'm a pretty sharp guy when it comes to medical science, but I'm betting that he wouldn't let me operate on his kid's brain tumor.

Just sayin'

Brett

Well, in elections we let those people decide who runs the country. And we let those people decide who lives or dies or goes to jail in trials.

 

[Brett327]

Words

It sounds like you're making an argument for mob rule, or at least rule by the lowest common denominator. Sounds idyllic.

@ Exhelodrvr: I think your analogy is imperfect. If you're equating socialized medicine to a "botched" surgery, then the outcome for each would be catastrophic. All hyperbole aside, nobody thinks that socialized medicine will mean the collapse of our government and nation. So, if we're talking about something much more nuanced (like constitutional law and the effects of socialized medicine), then the aforementioned janitor probably wouldn't be able to make an informed decision on the outcome of the surgery, the pros and cons of having the surgery or the prognosis of the patient.

Brett

 

[exhelodrvr]

It sounds like you're making an argument for mob rule, or at least rule by the lowest common denominator. Sounds idyllic.

@ Exhelodrvr: I think your analogy is imperfect. If you're equating socialized medicine to a "botched" surgery, then the outcome for each would be catastrophic. All hyperbole aside, nobody thinks that socialized medicine will mean the collapse of our government and nation. So, if we're talking about something much more nuanced (like constitutional law and the effects of socialized medicine), then the aforementioned janitor probably wouldn't be able to make an informed decision on the outcome of the surgery, the pros and cons of having the surgery or the prognosis of the patient.

Brett

You're the one who drew the analogy between asking a janitor about a brain tumor and lay people opining about constitutionality.

If a janitor can make an informed decision about whether or not someone is qualified to run the country, or whether or not they should live or die, then I think they can make an equally informed decision about whether or not something is constitutional or not, should they be given the appropriate information (as occurs in a trial).

 

[DukeAndrewJ]

It sounds like you're making an argument for mob rule, or at least rule by the lowest common denominator. Sounds idyllic.

Nowhere in my post did I suggest either. I never said that I believe popular passions should be able to overturn 200 years of legislation. In fact, our government is set up to avoid just that. I just (half)joked about why people people might want to.

But the main point of my post was that a Federal mandate enforcing the purchase of health insurance is fundamentally different than other regulatory institutions created under the 'general welfare' clause. I haven't been to law school, and I don't even own a robe - perhaps I am just missing some "nuances" here? If I get an insurance plan I don't want crammed down my throat and paid for out of my pocket, should I take solace in the fact that people far more intelligent than me have deemed it OK?

 

[Clux4]

Serious question, if the majority of our country does not want this bill (which they don't), is it still the right thing to do?

Did you get this from the TEA party?


Duke, do you have vehicle insurance on your car?

 

[DukeAndrewJ]

Did you get this from the TEA party?


Duke, do you have vehicle insurance on your car?

I got it from the fact that from what I have seen, a majority of people in this country DO NOT want the current healthcare bill passed. Amazingly enough, I didn't have to watch Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity to notice that.

And yes, I have car insurance. I have health insurance too. But as has been pointed out, there is a large difference. I choose to drive and therefor pay for that privilege. I can opt out at any time. The only way to opt out of Reid's plan would be to kill myself (which some on here might not mind).

 

[Clux4]

I got it from the fact that from what I have seen, a majority of people in this country DO NOT want the current healthcare bill passed. Amazingly enough, I didn't have to watch Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity to notice that.

And yes, I have car insurance. I have health insurance too. But as has been pointed out, there is a large difference. I choose to drive and therefor pay for that privilege. I can opt out at any time. The only way to opt out of Reid's plan would be to kill myself (which some on here might not mind).

I don't know how you could possibly tell the amount of people who are opposed to the bill. Are you a psychic? I mean, how do you expect me to take you at your word without substantiating evidence. Talking to like minded antagonist of the healthcare bill like yourself is probably giving you a wrong impression.

In the State of Virginia and probably every other state in the country, you are required to have an insurance or you pay a fee mandated by the state(uninsured motorist). Insurance companies set their prices and we are at their mercy. Yes, you are not forced to pay if you do not own a car.

But in the case of healthcare, persons without insurance will become a burden on the society as it is already the case. Who should pay off the bills of those individuals that are uninsured and unable to pay? Remember that they do not have an insurance, so they are paying their bills at full value.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

How do we know they don't? Please don't cite the latest FOX Opinion Dynamics or CNN poll.

Will a Rassmusen poll suffice or are all polls to the effect not valid? And it's not just the latest one. There's a fairly strong trend showing that Americans do not support the notion of universal health care.

Besides, we can't determine whether the people support "this bill" until the bill in question is in its final form, so it's a little premature to be declaring what the will of the people is.

That's great, except we probably won't know exactly what's in the bill until after the fact.

At any rate, as some have already pointed out, this is a republic, not a pure democracy, so if our representatives are going off the reservation, then it's the fault of the voters and they should be defeated during the next election. The people reap what they sow, and if the general public is too stupid or lazy or distracted by what Paris Hilton is wearing to get involved in the issues, then they deserve the crappy system of socialized medicine that is bearing down on them like a freight train.

True that.

 

[SkywardET]

But in the case of healthcare, persons without insurance will become a burden on the society as it is already the case. Who should pay off the bills of those individuals that are uninsured and unable to pay? Remember that they do not have an insurance, so they are paying their bills at full value.

Burden to society?
So if their bill is paid by one group of people (the taxpayers) they are a burden, but if their bill is paid by another group of people (the fellow insured) they are no longer a burden? And the solution to this is to force everyone to buy insurance?

If that's what passes for Congressional logic, then we're all screwed. Oh, and by the way, while everyone was eating up all the details they chose to WRT healthcare "reform", INTERPOL had several restrictions removed from them when operating inside the US. Probably the most substantial decision on law enforcement in decades, and certainly with the greatest potential impact, and almost nobody knows about it...

 

[Steve Wilkins]

So, if we're talking about something much more nuanced (like constitutional law and the effects of socialized medicine), then the aforementioned janitor probably wouldn't be able to make an informed decision on the outcome of the surgery, the pros and cons of having the surgery or the prognosis of the patient.

But he would get to decide if he has the surgery, yes? Just sayin...

 

[exhelodrvr]

I don't know how you could possibly tell the amount of people who are opposed to the bill. Are you a psychic? I mean, how do you expect me to take you at your word without substantiating evidence. Talking to like minded antagonist of the healthcare bill like yourself is probably giving you a wrong impression.

The latest of every major poll (Quinnipiac, CNN, Rasmussen, ABC, NBC, AP, Gallup, Pew, FOX) shows a majority of people opposed to the bill. If you weren't already aware of that, you haven't been paying attention.