ergh

Lol, Rich.

I dunno, I imagine the judge is probably right in that the Constitution doesn't technically allow something like this.  But, it doesn't technically allow tons of similar stuff and the Supreme Court has signed off on those, so I don't think they would be against this either.  I'm not sure the Supreme Court could make a ruling limited enough that it wouldn't 'rock the boat' so to speak, and one of the things the Supreme Court doesn't like to do is go against precedent.  We'll see.  Either way I'm curious to read the court opinions once it gets that far.

Why, Crazy?  Why?  

----------------------------------

Let me see if I can summarize from a position of neutrality, without any confusing details.

Emotional:

One side thinks it is wrong for the government to force citizens to do anything.

One side thinks it is OK as long as the government has a good reason.

This law forces citizens to purchase health care insurance, or pay a fine.  This means the two groups above are in disagreement.

This is an old debate that has been around a long time.

Legal:

Our Constitution prohibits the government from doing anything it wasn't specifically given the power to do.

One side thinks this means the government does not have the power to enforce laws like this.

One side thinks the government does have the power to enforce such laws, based on other cases our highest courts have ruled on.

This puts the legal sides in disagreement because this healthcare reform is not a power specifically granted to our government.  This is also an old debate that has been around for a long time.

Both sides will spend hours going over those same points in great detail and length.  It is horrid.  I'd advise you to stay out of it and enjoy the functional health-care system you've got, perhaps spending some time laughing at us Americans who have a talent for fucking it up no matter which side we're on.

Thanks guys.  This is a touchy subject I see, and so I won't get that much into it but just couple more questions.  Are the people against this forced healthcare against it solely because it is being forced, and that is "unconstitutional?"  And who is giving the healthcare, the governemnt or a private source?  

I'm no American so I'm not going to form any real opigions here about what best for Americas healthcare (not my business, don't know enough about it) but all I know is since I can remember I've been carrying around this little white card in my wallet. It costs me almost nothing (like $80 per year or something stupid) and that card gets me as much health care as I need.  If I cut off my finger at work (just show em the card), if I get into a car accident and break every bone in my body (just show em the card) that's it, no payment, no transactions, just show em that card.  It is pretty difficult for me to envision a place where this isn't the case (ofcourse I can, it is just difficult because it is so normal here).

Now I'm also not down the any government forcing anything on anyone, but this to me doesn't seem like forcing in a bad way, it just seems like something that makes sense.  Although I don't like the fee thing if you choose not to pay, that's were it seems to cross the line for me,  here you are allowed not to pay, and not to have healthcare if you so choose (your just screwing yourself), but that would be silly because it's so cheap, and it works so well it's like what is the point of not buying such a perfect product.

Hmm, so would you be for this plan if it was a tax that went to a government run healthcare system like in canada (forgetting that that it is unconstitutional)?  Is it impossible in America to turn around something in the constitution like this?  I understand you have to draw a line somewhere just like with laws, and if you allow one thing that is unconstitutional you have problem not allowing others, but shouldn't a solution to something that perhaps isnt working (or if you have found a better way) be allowed to have a voice.  Shouldn't change be atleast possible in light of good reasoning.  I'm not saying this way of healthcare is the right way, or that the constituion is this or that (ofcourse not) I'm just saying if something is broke, and the mojority wants a certain fix that may be unconstitutional, shouldn't it be possible to somewhat change the constitution in light of better evidence, reasoning, or whatever, just like morality.  Please don't get all Americano on my ass, I love what the founding fathers were going for, some really reasonable stuff.  But can nothing like this ever be changed???  What about in 500 years, will the constitution still be upheld like this in 500 years, what about 1000, just wondering? 

Car insurance is mandatory and you can be fined or arrested for driving without it. You want a person with no insurance to hit and injure you?

I am forced to pay taxes that go to private contractors to build fighter jets and pay for wars I don't support.

Is it that you don't mind taking other people's money when it suits your needs or when it supports your political party?

Ok, then lets have no rules, no taxes and total anarchy. You want a robber baron society where only the wealthy have power.  Somalia is as close to "no rules" as you can get. It's great for those who have money there, but it sucks for most.

Put your money where your mouth is. Next time someone has the inability to pay for insurance and get hit buy a car or get cancer, lets just become money hungry greedy pigs and let them die, because they cant afford a basic human need.

All I am hearing you say is "money equals power and might makes right"  The Saudi Royal family isn't poor and I am sure they have great health care for themselves because they can pay too.

'LET THEM EAT CAKE!"

The funny part is you seem to be too focused on "ME ME ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE" to see that if private industry provided affordable health care we wouldn't be at this point. If private industry cared more about the patients instead of the profits, we wouldn't be using the emergency room or turning to government to protect us from corporate monopolies.

If anyone should be happy about this it should be you because the CEOs and share holders are going to make out like bandits for what Obama is handing them. If it is about private business getting what it wants you should be happy.

I don't like this bill either, not because it makes health care insurance mandatory like car insurance. I don't like it because it didn't do a damned thing to break up the corporate monopoly these insurance companies have. The United States government certainly is the best government money can buy.

I thought there were three classes in this country, but according to you, there is only one that counts.

I couldn't agree more! And this is coming from someone who views health care as a right and not a privilege.

So, in the age of the Robber Barons in this country there was no government? And during the anarchist (C.N.T./F.A.I - anarcho-syndicalist unions) control of a third of Spain, robber baron's ruled? I'm sorry Brian, but you're wrong on this one. I'm all in favor of universal health coverage, but legally forcing all people to buy their coverage from the very same people who have fucked us for this long and caused this mess isn't the way. The answer of the global economic crisis we are facing (and will be for a long time to come) wasn't to give the job of fixing it to the people who caused the problems in the first place (giant financial houses, banks, compliant governments and the wealthiest global elites) and the problem of our access to health care is the same. We need to take a radically different direction, one towards decentralized, horizontalist/non-hierarchical networked decision making, or these same problems of a very few elites fucking the world, and us, for their benefit will continue.

There are various reasons.  Some don't like the specifics of the plan, some don't like anything the government does, some have moral issues with the idea, some think it is illegal, etc.

The healthcare is given by private institutions in most cases.  Our version of your $80 card is buying an insurance plan on a monthly basis, just without the taxes and government subsidy.  We pay an insurance company to do that for us.

I'm not getting into my opinion because I'm tired of these threads.  If you have any more questions though, or want more specifics, I'd be glad to answer them in as neutral a way as I can manage.

I would say that this is where many of our problems are coming from and not the solution. In no way does this mean that I'm looking for some kind of Stalinist dictatorship, since that just meant that the different classes are either sovereign or slave, instead of sovereign to sovereign/slave to slave. So to make sure this post won't take up pages and pages, I would say that the systems being used in the anarcho-syndicalist areas of Spain in the 30's would be the most preferable in my perspective. Read Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker (which was written because Emma Goldman asked him to describe what was going in Spain and is online for free) or the history of The I.W.W. (Industrial Workers of the World) or C.N.T. of Spain.

The major difference between my objections to the current administration and the other side of the one American political party coin is that the Rethuglicans are opposing him from a reactionary perspective and mine is revolutionary.

About time we stopped those damn Commies

The gigantic difference being that I am not required to drive a car and only need the car insurance if I am going to drive on public roads and the car insurance only needs to cover damage caused to anyone I might injure. Health insurance is being required for everyone because they breathe and must cover them. 

Again, apples and oranges. There is a fundamental difference between taxing a population to provide a necessity like protection and forcing an individual to buy a particular product. But you should know by now that I am against almost all government spending regardless of the party in power. It isn't like I haven't bitched about it enough on this site.

I do put my money where my mouth is. I pay for my own damn medical care with cash. No insurance, no government. I also donate substantially to a number of charity hospitals and funds that allow people without the resources to receive the best healthcare in the world for free. 

That is why I don't understand your position. The bill obviously does more for corporate fat cats while doing nothing for the average joe. I have no issue with corporations until they use the government like they are here to extort money from us. The marriage of government and corporations is the most dangerous domestic political issue our country has ever faced. I don't understand how all of the Democrats who routinely (and often rightly so) criticize the Republicans for their close ties to business now turn around and do the same thing. Democrats should be as outraged as I am over the bill, although I understand they might come to the same conclusion for different reasons.

His position doesn't seem all that hard to understand to me; it amounts to kneejerk (neo)liberalism plus a hefty amount of tar-brushing people he doesn't agree with and intermittent SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS.

I'm not much of a saint when it comes to political discussion, though I rarely bother that much with trying to pick a fight with someone over ideology.

Okay, okay, make that "most people".  Last I saw, if you take out the mandatory part, most people are for the other provisions.  Including the medicare clause.  Actually, I have said before, I think we should have gone with "medicare for all" and just used the existing system.  Must less expensive to implement.

OK, the actual situation is sort of as has already been described. However, what has already been posted is not really adequate to see how things work around here.

As it happens, I don't really have a great understanding of Westminster governments, so I might blow some detail here. If I do that, feel free to ask for clarification but let me say some stuff and see where it goes.

Even so, you need to know what it means to be a state. Sure, Virginia is a state and Connecticut is a state. So are France, Poland and Libya states. The key concept here is that state=nation. Province/territory/whatever=administrative subunit of the larger government.

We had 13 states at the end of the revolution and we took a few years to get around to setting up the federal government. The federal government is more like an empire with (currently) 50 client nations. Except that the federal government was planned out to be a much smaller thing than it has developed into.

Enter the commerce clause. It says that the federal government may regulate commerce between the states. However, the tenth amendment is quite clear that the federal government may not involve itself in matters that are reserved for the states. Basically, they can deal with a matter where New Jersey and New York wish to to business but neither will agree to the others terms. However, the feds specifically are barred from controlling business inside a single state.

There are a few notable exceptions to the general idea. One example is control over “navigable waterways”. Basically, since rivers do not respect political boundaries and were the super highways of the eighteenth century, the feds have dominion over them. However, it is a fact that the federal government does not have authority over business transactions that take place inside a single state.

Now insurance companies make money hand over fist by keeping the federal government locked out of the matter. They may be huge corporations that deal with business all over the country. However, they offer “product” on a state by state business. Thus, the federal government is, at least in theory, forbidden from becoming involved in such matters.

Hence the use of the commerce clause to disallow ObamaCare.

That is just ignorant bullshit propagated by dumb ass journalists and politicians. Although at least you are admitting that we are having an inflation problem which the government still denies and is causing on purpose. Remember QE1 and QE2? The PURPOSE of those programs was to weaken the dollar and cause inflation. When I posted on it a few months ago, everyone thought I was crazy. If you had listened to me at the time and invested in some commodity futures you would have made a nice profit by now (and could pay for your health insurance)

Inflation is happening, prices are going up, especially energy and food but other commodities as well. Perfectly predictable. And when something is perfectly predictable you can guarantee that the futures market is going to see it coming. You are right that this is probably one of the causes of the uprising in Egypt. But blaming the futures market when predictable results follow from federal policy is absurd. 

The futures market is crucial to farmers who rely heavily on it to sell virtually all of their production and help protect themselves from price fluctuations. A future is simply a contract agreeing to pay a certain price for a product on a certain date. For example, I might be interested in buying a bushel of corn which right now is $6.66. If I think the price of corn is going to rise before it is picked in the fall I might tell a farmer that I will buy it now at $6.66. If the farmer thinks that is a fair price he agrees, if he thinks it will go up more too he will hold on to it. That is a future.

The benefit to the farmer is that he can make sure all of his corn is already sold the day it is picked and processed. Otherwise, he would pick all his corn and might not be able to sell it. If the futures market over estimates what the demand will be, some schmuck in New York who has no need of 1000 bushels of corn will end up owning 1000 bushels of corn and will probably be fired. The farmer still gets paid. Although, in practice, most futures contracts end up being held by actual buyers in the weeks leading up to harvest. The speculators make or lose their money several months beforehand. If the speculators spike the price up higher than supply and demand call for the result is farmers making a ton of extra money and speculators losing money. Boohoo, Wall Street fat cats losing money. Cry me a river. 

It doesn't really affect the price that the grocery store is going to pay for it because in a theoretical price spike the speculators will not be able to sell all their futures in time and will become desperate and let it go at a lower price than they paid for the future. They would rather get 80% of their money on the investment than be stuck with corn that they don't have the facilities or ability to sell.

Also your comment that they somehow convince investors to pay more than a future is worth is also wrong. The futures market is very high risk, and those who invest in it are not your average 401k investor. They are seasoned and very intelligent investors. They make their investments with full knowledge of the risks. If they overpay for a future it is because they believe the price is going up not ignorance. It isn't like some of the people buying subprime mortgage investments that really were ignorant and taken advantage of by the banks. Your average futures trader is much more savvy.

The ironic thing is that our Federal Reserve knows it and has done research on the issue. http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2009/200929/200929abs.html Of course, you can't expect politicians to read economic research, it isn't as exciting as the latest episode of Dora the Explorer.

The futures market is predicting inflation because the course we are on now is leading to inflation. The wonderful thing about the futures market is that it can give us warnings about what is coming in the future so that we can prepare for it. Our government has time to change its policies if they would get their heads out of their asses. Don't blame the market because it is making predictions that are right. Look to the real source of the problem.

Probably the one market where futures are often higher than the real price is oil. That is for a very simple reason, OPEC has us by the balls. There are always those in the futures market that think this is the time that OPEC is going to exercise its power and jack up the prices. It hasn't happened yet, but one day they will probably be right unless we seriously reduce our dependence on OPEC. Another problem, like social security, that everyone knows we have but no one does shit to fix.  Again, don't blame the market. It is warning us of a potential catastrophic danger. Rather than take it out on the market, heed the warning and take steps to fix that problem so we don't find ourselves unable to purchase energy one day.