Pelosi/Obama New Sales Pitch = "You're gonna lose in

[OCinBuffalo]

...but, at the same time, they are saying that there's no way they will lose the House/Senate in November? Which is it?

 

Essentially we are being "lamed ducked" into a terrible health care bill that wastes a whole lot of $$ and only fixes about 20% of the problem. Great.

 

This is indefensible. Thank God we have 37 states passing/have already passed laws to block this. Take it to the Supreme Court, get a 5-4 vote if that's what it takes and throw this thing out with the trash.

[/dev/null]

Take it to the Supreme Court, get a 5-4 vote if that's what it takes and throw this thing out with the trash.

 

Congratz. You're thinking just like a House Democrat. Get just enough reps/justices to have your way

 

Republican = Democrat = Republican = Democrat = Republican = Democrat

[RkFast]

This bill is going nowhere. It will be signed into law, about 30 state AGs are going to file a lawsuit on the bills Consitutionality regarding both whats in it and how it was passed, and eventually the SCOTUS is going to rule it completely UNconstitutional and kill it deader than a doornail.

[IDBillzFan]

This bill is going nowhere. It will be signed into law, about 30 state AGs are going to file a lawsuit on the bills Consitutionality regarding both whats in it and how it was passed, and eventually the SCOTUS is going to rule it completely UNconstitutional and kill it deader than a doornail.

I wish I shared your optimism.

[John Adams]

This bill is going nowhere. It will be signed into law, about 30 state AGs are going to file a lawsuit on the bills Consitutionality regarding both whats in it and how it was passed, and eventually the SCOTUS is going to rule it completely UNconstitutional and kill it deader than a doornail.

 

Not a chance. It's not unconstitutional. The commerce clause will override any state that tries to opt out.

 

Even if you get the right wingers on the SC to vote against it, it will be a 5-4 loss. The center won't go against all the Commerce Clause precedent.

[IDBillzFan]

Not a chance. It's not unconstitutional. The commerce clause will override any state that tries to opt out.

 

Even if you get the right wingers on the SC to vote against it, it will be a 5-4 loss. The center won't go against all the Commerce Clause precedent.

BOHICA

[3rdnlng]

BOHICA

 

 

Ouch! K-Y next time, please.

[/dev/null]

Deem and Pass appears to be dead. There will be a regular vote on the Senate bill.

 

Boner has asked for a roll call vote

[OCinBuffalo]

Congratz. You're thinking just like a House Democrat. Get just enough reps/justices to have your way

 

Republican = Democrat = Republican = Democrat = Republican = Democrat

Perhaps. But, if these are the "rules" they want to play by, I don't want to hear any bitching when those same "rules" are used against them.

[OCinBuffalo]

Not a chance. It's not unconstitutional. The commerce clause will override any state that tries to opt out.

 

Even if you get the right wingers on the SC to vote against it, it will be a 5-4 loss. The center won't go against all the Commerce Clause precedent.

I'm no lawyer. Clearly.

 

But, I never thought the Court would rule against the ALGORE, Inc. recount either. That went right down party lines. Given the fact that for the first time in history we are being told we HAVE to buy something, the mere unprecedented nature of this law makes me wonder why they wouldn't do it again.

 

This is not regulating commerce. By definition, it is REQUIRING it.

 

I have a question as well(obviously I do know contract law): Commerce is normally defined as having a buyer and a seller, with the regulator as a third party, taking neither side. So, with the government now participating in the transaction, by requiring it, doesn't that change the game? If you force me to buy something, and that something doesn't deliver per the terms of the contract, aren't you liable for forcing me to buy it? So, in essence, can we now sue the Feds for insurance issues?....And, I thought we weren't allowed to sue the Feds??? So, how does this square?

 

Not sure if any of that goes anywhere, but hey, looks like the trial lawyers get to bill even MORE hours...thus, adding even MORE valueless cost to health care. Great plan!

[John Adams]

I'm no lawyer. Clearly.

 

But, I never thought the Court would rule against the ALGORE, Inc. recount either. That went right down party lines. Given the fact that for the first time in history we are being told we HAVE to buy something, the mere unprecedented nature of this law makes me wonder why they wouldn't do it again.

 

This is not regulating commerce. By definition, it is REQUIRING it.

 

The point of the commerce clause is that the Constitution gives the power to Congress to regulate commerce between the states. Heath care certainly extends accross state lines and thus the Commerce Clause gives the power.

 

Agreed that the Court is stupidly political. Al Gore lost. It should have been 9-0. In this case, unless the Court is ready to trump a few hundred years of commerce clause expansion (something I'd be AOK with), the health care will bill will stand.

 

BTW, if health care went down to the 10th amendment, it would be create havoc as states opted out of a ton of federal laws.

[OCinBuffalo]

The point of the commerce clause is that the Constitution gives the power to Congress to regulate commerce between the states. Heath care certainly extends accross state lines and thus the Commerce Clause gives the power.

 

Agreed that the Court is stupidly political. Al Gore lost. It should have been 9-0. In this case, unless the Court is ready to trump a few hundred years of commerce clause expansion (something I'd be AOK with), the health care will go down.

 

BTW, if health care went down to the 10th amendment, it would be create havoc as states opted out of a ton of federal laws.

But...but...but... (haven't seen that in a while so I thought I would haul it out)

 

What about suing the government if the health care they forced me to buy doesn't do the job? What if I could only afford one plan, and, since I had to buy something, isn't the government now liable for damages if that insurance doesn't cover me properly/tries to screw me out of a claim?

 

And, last time I checked: the word regulate requires commerce to exist, so it can be: regulated. It is not the originator of that commerce. The clause appears to mean: commerce that would otherwise exist without regulation, not, commerce becoming compulsory as a result of regulation. Seems like we are talking about 2 different things.

[John Adams]

But...but...but... (haven't seen that in a while so I thought I would haul it out)

 

What about suing the government if the health care they forced me to buy doesn't do the job? What if I could only afford one plan, and, since I had to buy something, isn't the government now liable for damages if that insurance doesn't cover me properly/tries to screw me out of a claim?

 

You can't sue the government except in limited circumstances. Sovereign immunity.

 

I'm all about canceling my current insurance and saving a ton of money to be on your nickel. Thanks.

[Magox]

You can't sue the government except in limited circumstances. Sovereign immunity.

 

I'm all about canceling my current insurance and saving a ton of money to be on your nickel. Thanks.

I am too JA. I don't see why I have to carry insurance and pay the premiums if I can just pick it up anytime I want to. The penalties are roughly $750 a year and my family's premiums are close to $8000. It's a no brainer.

[John Adams]

And, last time I checked: the word regulate requires commerce to exist, so it can be: regulated. It is not the originator of that commerce. The clause appears to mean: commerce that would otherwise exist without regulation, not, commerce becoming compulsory as a result of regulation. Seems like we are talking about 2 different things.

 

This is a nice discussion you and I could have about the various definitions of regulate. Let's be clear though: the commerce clause has nothing to do with limiting government's power and everything to do with expanding it. The precedent for the government's power grabs using the commerce clause knows almost no bounds.

 

HEre's a couple snippets from wiki for your reading pleasure on how the Court has dealt with the Commerce Clause.

 

Civil rights

 

The wide interpretation of the scope of the Commerce Clause continued following the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aimed to prevent business from discriminating against black customers. The United States Supreme Court issued several opinions which supported this use of the Commerce Clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

 

Use against sex offenders

 

The Commerce Clause has been used to support the registration requirement under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), requiring people to undergo sex offender registration when moving states, even if their new state of residence has not implemented the statute. There is currently a circuit split on this issue, and the Supreme Court has agree to adjudicate it in 2010.[8]

[OCinBuffalo]

You can't sue the government except in limited circumstances. Sovereign immunity.

 

I'm all about canceling my current insurance and saving a ton of money to be on your nickel. Thanks.

But, if the government is INSERTING ITSELF into the agreement, by requiring a purchase, instead of what it does now, only talk about the terms of that purchase, doesn't that mean we can sue them?

 

They can't have it both ways, either they stay out of the fray, and retain their immunity, and supposedly, their objectivity as "regulators", or, they are now involved on the side of the sellers, by compelling the buyers to buy, based on nothing other than the buyers being born in this country, and they lose the ability to regulate. (This is not the same as car insurance, you don't have to buy a car).

 

If nothing else, can't we sue to take away their ability to regulate any business in which they are actively participating? How can you require public firms to be audited by a 3rd party, but, let the government audit itself, and, compete with those public firms in the same industry?

[JimBob2232]

Yeah, unless stevens retires/dies and the republicans fillibuster the new nominee!

[IDBillzFan]

I'm all about canceling my current insurance and saving a ton of money to be on your nickel. Thanks.

Me, too. I really love the whole "can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions" thing. How awesome is that? Clearly someone in DC thought this whole thing through very closely.

 

Or not.

[ricojes]

...but, at the same time, they are saying that there's no way they will lose the House/Senate in November? Which is it?

 

Essentially we are being "lamed ducked" into a terrible health care bill that wastes a whole lot of $$ and only fixes about 20% of the problem. Great.

 

This is indefensible. Thank God we have 37 states passing/have already passed laws to block this. Take it to the Supreme Court, get a 5-4 vote if that's what it takes and throw this thing out with the trash.

Which would explain this...

[John Adams]

Me, too. I really love the whole "can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions" thing. How awesome is that? Clearly someone in DC thought this whole thing through very closely.

 

Or not.

 

Yeah, even at 2% of my income being the "penalty," I'd pay way less than I currently pay.