Debunking Some Talking Points
Wed, 03/24/2010 - 07:03 — Rottenchester
The bill isn't popular.
Pre-passage polls that showed a majority disliking the bill always had the issue of liberals who didn't think it went far enough, others who weren't well-informed about it, and some who were disgusted with the process. Now that the bill is law, early polls aren't showing a major backlash. Of course, this is an ongoing process, but the notion that Americans are going to rise up to smite insurance reform has always been a bit far-fetched. There were far more protesters calling for immigration reform in DC on Sunday than there were protesters yelling about healthcare reform.
The bill is unconstitutional and will be repealed.
Maybe, but I haven't heard many compelling specific arguments. Medicare requires a mandatory tax to fund healthcare. The government can require people to buy insurance. There's nothing radically new in the bill.
Republicans can de-fund this if they take over Congress.
Congress has never de-funded a major entitlement. And taking over Congress is a big job -- Democrats have big majorities in both Houses.
Prohibition was repealed.
That wasn't an entitlement. And people love to drink. They don't love worrying about whether they're going to have insurance if they lose their job.
Comments
And although I was a wee lad way back then, I don't recall Medicare being a terribly popular idea at the time. Consider that Truman started trying to implement such a plan, and it took ~20 years for it to happen.
The bill isn't popular.
You show me one poll I can show you another: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/cnn-poll-americans-dont-...
Of course I have no other proof it is unpopular. Except maybe that the Democrats had to use extreme legislative tactics to pass it. It had bi-partisan opposition. Massachusetts elected a Republican to fill the seat of a guy who championed this issue. The rage after the vote. The fact everyone is predicting losses for the Democrats. But you have that poll....
The bill is unconstitutional and will be repealed.
Name me another service that the government forces you to buy from a private company and a condition of your citizenship? I'll wait.....
Republicans can de-fund this if they take over Congress.
Because once people get a taste of government handouts they tend to enjoy them, which is why they are dangerous to a nation's economy. Please see Europe if you disagree
Prohibition was repealed.
Prohibition was also a constitutional amendment. See how tough that is to do. I agree we are screwed, you just don't seem to care.
The polls will shake out in a few weeks. Let's see how it looks then. It's by no means settled that it's wildly unpopular, that's for sure.
What "extreme tactics"? A majority vote?
So what if insurance is purchased from a private company? Why does that make it unconstitutional?
Using Reconciliation to pass a measure that redesigned 1/6 of the nation's economy. Threatening the "Slaughter Rule". And in that reconciliation they are also taking over the Student Loan industry. All very transparent indeed.
Scott Brown's election meant that the Democrats could not follow the normal, and most Constitutional way to pass a bill. Schoolhouse Rock never sang about reconciliation or deem and pass did they?
Please show me where in the Constitution of the United States the federal government is given the power to force a citizen to purchase a product from a private company. Granted they do a lot of things they have no power to do in the Constitution, but this is particularly brazen. They can tax, not fine.
If the Federal government passed a law saying you had to buy an American Car from GM, wouldn't you say "Wait a minute, I ride my bike to work. I don't think I should have to buy a car."
**Crickets**
Reconciliation is a majority vote. Deem and pass wasn't used.
As for the rest, you repeated pretty much the same argument as the previous comment. Did you want me to repeat my reply?
I'll just add that I find it interesting that a political group that is always complaining about activist judges is looking for them to legislate from the bench.
I missed the part where you replied: Please show me where in the Constitution of the United States the federal government is given the power to force a citizen to purchase a product from a private company.
If Congress used Reconciliation to mandate that every United States citizen buy a firearm from Smith and Weston, you would be fine with that? You think they have that authority.
Legislating from the bench and striking down Unconstitutional legislation are two different things. One is where you decide, yes a man has the right to marry another man based on personal opinion or insight. The other is pretty much the only function of the Judicial Branch. If not for striking down laws that are in violation of the Constitution why do we have a judicial branch?
Oops, I guess that was a different thread where you asked the same question.
I answered, basically, that the government asks us to do all kinds of things that are constitutional yet intrusive. I have no idea whether this one is unconstitutional, but I highly doubt it. The reason I doubt it is that it certainly isn't unconstitutional for government to require payment for government-run health insurance. Medicare has been going on for 40+ years. We pay in when we're younger, get the benefit when we're older.
As for the smith + wesson hypothetical, let's have that discussion when a majority of our elected representatives vote for that bill.
Well I think you are skirting the issue and essentially putting your fingers in your ears and saying "It passed. It passed." You have no idea if it is Constitutional or not? It is not a terribly long document. I bet you could read it in an hour. I'll even give you a hint of where to try to look. Try article I. How did you feel about the Patriot Act?
I understand my hypothetical is outrages, but the correlation is the same. If you believe the government can force you to make decisions about your health and force you to buy a product from a private company, then you essentially agree with my statement.
And while I don't agree with medicare, I can clearly see the difference between a government taxing me and a government forcing me to purchase something. And if we can take medicare a little further down this road, what are the odds that the crew that gave up medicare will keep this program in line with costs? Isn't medicare a massive fiscal liability for the government? So you are ok with crippling government programs as long as they pass?
I'm allowing that it might be unconstitutional, but every story I've seen that interviewed lawyers who know says it probably isn't. The courts will decide.