Thank you for acknowledging that this is an issue as to what rights are afforded to states and the federal government. That being said, I’m not sure what you mean by regulate economic inactivity. There is an economic exchange of purchasing insurance for the received service which is health insurance. That obvious question would be if states like Mass. can mandate health coverage why can’t the federal government? This would be an obvious argument any lawsuit would have to overcome. Your mentioned the commerce clause. The commerce clause states that laws can not be enacted that place an undue burden on interstate commerce. This is another angle to pursue (stating that requiring all citizens to have healthcare coverage is an undue burden on interstate commerce) but I don’t see the validity in this but that’s a possible angle.
@ kkent, yeah I was typing fast. Are you still in the DC area? You working for a Asset Management firm here?
It’s not really about what rights are afforded to the federal gov’t vs the state gov’t–it’s about what rights are afforded to the federal gov’t. And the federal gov’t, as was pointed out by the professor at Georgetown, has never regulated economic inactivity–in this case, it means that the federal gov’t will require that you purchase health insurance just because you exist. It’s the same thing, he pointed out, if the federal gov’t issued a mandate requiring that each individual purchase a Chevy just because he or she exists. In this instance, there is no precedent that the commerce clause–where rights are given to the federal gov’t to regulate interstate commerce–grants the federal gov’t the right to mandate that individuals partake in certain economic activities. However, in Massachusetts, it very well could be constitutional for them to enforce mandates because the 10th Amendment gives the states or the people ALL rights that the federal gov’t doesn’t have. So long as a mandate doesn’t violate the Massachusetts constitution, then it would be allowed.
A Chevy is not a good example because that’s a particular brand; but let’s say each person must have homeowners or renters insurance. So even if you didn’t own a home you would have to purchase renters insurance. Would this be unconstitutional? I guess we’ll have to wait and see how this one plays out but I’ll be really surprised if this is overturned on constitutional grounds.
Interesting points on both sides. This will undoubtedly end up before the supreme court. I didn’t realize the commerce clause could be so interesting. I’m looking forward to taking constitutional law next year. And kkent maybe you should think about law school. I’m thinking you’d fit in well at Regent or Liberty. 
JOE2010 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes I do, for the sake of the millions who do not > have the priviledges and opportunities I have had > in my life. Please expand on this. For poor people there’s SCHIP and you aren’t refused emergancy room visits. For colleges there financial aid. What should these people get. Are you ok paying them if they decide not to work?
Zokeseh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This pole is pointless, who cares what anyone > thinks about the bill. Let’s all realize that we > are trying to predict the future here. No body > here knows enough to make an informed statement as > to what the future outcome of the bill will be. > All you are doing is getting a tally of party > representation, honestly. If someone can present > me a 10 ten year forecast of outlay and receipt > increases/decreases due to this bill each year > then I will take back my statement (backed by > verifiable research/data). Do you care about global warming? I doubt our generation will face material problems. But billions of dollars are being spent today, researching and finding a solution to this problem, if at all there is one. In some form or other you are paying, out of your own pocket, to support the cause. Do you care about the water shortage in underdeveloped/developing economies and in some cases also in developed countries? The next potential big war is most likely going to be over water. Again, this issue will affect your life, one way or another. The point is that it’s not about predicting the future – I agree no one can. But one can surely understand the signs and make an informed decision. That’s what a poll tries to capture. And everyone should care about an issue as big as this. It will affect your life in some way; It has nothing to do with party participation.
Zokeseh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Again, anyone who is saying the bill will decrease > or increase the deficit in the long run should > start their own psychic hotline. > 1-CFA-PSYCHIC…call now operators are standing > by… Have to disagree here. We have a long and proven track record of the fact the the government has consistently and constantly underestimated the costs of major projects, reforms, and social programs. My vote is a No. It is appalling that the President and Democratic Party have the gall to push through this SHIT reform without bipartisan support and when the majority of the population opposes the actions. I guess two things to take from this, one is that this piece of crap will be torn down in reconciliation, and two that the Dems will lose control of Senate in November and the White House two years hence (just please don’t let it be to Palin!).
No.
The only thing I am sure of is that it won’t fix everything, and it won’t be nearly as bad as the opponents make it out to be.
It won’t be as bad? ->It nationalizes the student loan industry ->You now pay for the right to live. You will need to show insurance papers to the government. -->Under the Democrats’ health care bill, if a medical school wants to increase its chances of receiving many different kinds of grants and contracts from the federal government, it should have a demonstrated record of training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups."
No. I’ve talked to numerous Dr. (MD) clients of ours that work in various capacities across the medical industry. Everyone of them thinks this is the worst idea ever. After hearing their opinions I would tend to agree.
S&P futures not really reacting to the news. Hmm…
@adavydov7, obviously you meant this as a semi-joke. Exactly what percentage of government contracts initial cost estimates are currently classified as being an overrun? Some projects overrun and others under-run, this is how project management works. To try tell me that you know with certainty it’s going to over-run or under-run is psychic. If you were to say you have data that shows that 60% of cost estimates over-run so you feel there is a 60% chance this will over-run I would acknowledge your research. Until you show me such data, you’re just guessing one way or the other; this wouldn’t fly in my firm or yours so why do you think it’ll fly here? “Certainty is afforded to dead men but not the living”. @sid3699, I rather wait for the dust to settle then to be passionate about something you don’t fully grasp or understand.
In 1965, the CBO estimated that annual Medicare expenditures in 2010 would be $60 billion. The actual number will be $450 billion in 2010.
CBO didn’t exist in 1965
no
I know nothing about this, but am interested why so many people oppose something so accepted across most of the developed world. Is it: - that universal health care is considered a good thing, but that the current proposal is not liked? In which case isn’t it better to have something now and refine later? - that compulsory insurance infringes some civil liberty? But what about any taxation, such as paying for the military? Any quick answers would be appreciated.
TheBigBean Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know nothing about this, but am interested why > so many people oppose something so accepted across > most of the developed world. Is it: > - that universal health care is considered a good > thing, but that the current proposal is not liked? > In which case isn’t it better to have something > now and refine later? > - that compulsory insurance infringes some civil > liberty? But what about any taxation, such as > paying for the military? > > Any quick answers would be appreciated. The quickest answer is that the GOP is the party of the stupid people.
TheBigBean Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know nothing about this, but am interested why > so many people oppose something so accepted across > most of the developed world. Is it: > - that universal health care is considered a good > thing, but that the current proposal is not liked? > In which case isn’t it better to have something > now and refine later? > - that compulsory insurance infringes some civil > liberty? But what about any taxation, such as > paying for the military? > > Any quick answers would be appreciated. So if communism was accepted everywhere else would that ok? In the UK a patient died because he couldn’t get water even after begging the nurses and calling 911 from the hospital. Canada has a 3 month wait for a cholesterol test. A premier in Canada CHOOSES to come to the US for his health care knowing they don’t do the operation in Canada because of the cost. The US system is (or as of today) the best in the world. No one is denied care. Is it perfect? No… But what is perfect?