Polls: majority of Americans want govt-run heath care

[Winehole23]

DarrinS in precis:

Misleading banner, well nigh immediate resort to strawman, tacky attempt to distract with a pla udinous cliche; a tedious and slightly obtuse semantic tack; all capped by a piece of sarcastic irony meant to put some daylight between him and his glaring mistake.

[wut]

I think the better way is to have tort reform, increased legislation to keep the health industry from making health insurance unaffordable (making caps...gov't subsides for lower income, remove inane policies like 'pre-existing conditions', etc)...however having said that just looking at the Banking industry (credit card companies, banks, etc) ...it's pretty clear they'll just find a loop hole to screw you so they can keep high profit margins.

If you don't have a public option to keep the private industry honest, it's clear where we are in our history (on the extreme side of capitalism), they'll just increase rates somewhere else to make up for the loss in profits.

And not to go completely off-topic...but why isn't obesity/cardiovascular disease being talked about at all in this debate of health care? It's pretty clear the reason people can't afford health care is because of America's unhealthy habits....which is to say making health insurance more affordable isn't just going to solve the problem alone (ie. gov't run health care would make health more of an integral part of American society).

Summary:

In a perfect world, reform of the current private health care industry is preferred.

However, our world is not perfect, so at the very least a public option needs to exist.

My belief is that a public option will lead to a one-payer system eventually...and is probably for the best long-term for America...because let's face it, we're not going to stop eating bacon burgers and buying the biggest big screen tvs we can afford.

[boutons_deux]

"reform of the current private health care industry is ..."

... is impossible, because, like the financial sector, Congress is owned by the corps.

Note that the corrupt for-profit insurance companies are protected in the health bills from having their customers in company group plans switch to the exchanges and public option.

ie, employees in group plans are "captured" by the for-profit insurance companies, denying citizens free choice of their health insurance.

The insurance cartel has protected is cartel and exorbitant profits, that they increase by raising prices for the sole reaon on increasing profits detached from costs, simply because they can, like the banks and cc issuers raise their fees simply to generate more revenue without increase in costs or products delivered.

[wut]

agreed, which is why I think anything less than a public option will fix nothing.

[jman3000]

ruh roh

[FromWayDowntown]

How can it even be cons utional?

Art. I, Section 8.

[DarrinS]

You're wrong. I won't give you any facts or reasons for my rebuttal, but here's a nice smiiley.

[Wild Cobra]

Art. I, Section 8.

Please explain to me how that that can be used to force people to buy insurance, without violation cons utional rights?

[FromWayDowntown]

Please explain to me how that that can be used to force people to buy insurance, without violation cons utional rights?

Congress is explicitly vested with power to provide for the general welfare and is further vested with the power to make such laws as are necessary and proper to carry into execution its power to provide for the general welfare.

I'm curious what clauses of the cons ution provide that people cannot be made to buy insurance (or anything else for that matter) -- really, where is the capitalism or the free market clause of the Cons ution? I've studied the text and I don't see it. And since you're such a strict textualist, I'm sure you won't hit me back with any sort of "it's implicit in the text" or "it was clear that that was the intention of the Framers." Frankly, I don't think you get to be a textualist when it suits you.

And, interestingly, States seem to be perfectly within their rights to demand that drivers purchase insurance as a precondition to driving. While I realize that driving is a privilege and that one could simply choose not to drive and avoid the obligation to purchase insurance, the ultimate consequence of such laws seems quite clearly to contradict your cons utional argument.

[exstatic]

People are forced to buy auto insurance. Someone call the Supreme Court!!

[boutons_deux]

Typical right-wing lying, the subject says

"majority of Americans want govt-run heath care"

but the poll question is

"the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage"

=========

Can't say it's causality, but

the weaker the Dems make the "public option",

the more the reform looks like a mandated revenue for the for-profit insurers gougers,

the less the reform limits exorbitant health service price gouging

health reform not nullifying the law forbidding the govt from negotiating drug prices

a employee-insured Americans will be denied access to public option exchanges

unemployed/self-employed Americans won't get the tax-free benefit when they buy insurance like employees do,

denying abortion funding (1M abortions/year and millions more women who support right-to-choose)

... the less Americans poll as supporting the reform.

The Americans who have overwhelmingly supported a govt-run health insurance and govt controls on prices are not seeing the two objectives achieved.

[Wild Cobra]

People are forced to buy auto insurance. Someone call the Supreme Court!!

Please don't tell me you believe that is the same.

Buying car insurance is a requirement to drive. Not everybody drives.

Is it then your position we euthinise people who don't buy health insurance? That they have no privilege to live if they don't pay?

[boutons_deux]

"Buying car insurance is a requirement to drive"

US is trying to advance American civilization (trying to catch up with other advanced societies) by making access to health care a right, not a privilege.

Expanding rights is as American as American military imperialism and bull wars.

[Wild Cobra]

Congress is explicitly vested with power to provide for the general welfare and is further vested with the power to make such laws as are necessary and proper to carry into execution its power to provide for the general welfare.

Making someone buy a product they don't want is unethical, and not in the interest for the general welfare.

What's next? Make people vote democrat?

I'm curious what clauses of the cons ution provide that people cannot be made to buy insurance (or anything else for that matter) -- really, where is the capitalism or the free market clause of the Cons ution? I've studied the text and I don't see it. And since you're such a strict textualist, I'm sure you won't hit me back with any sort of "it's implicit in the text" or "it was clear that that was the intention of the Framers." Frankly, I don't think you get to be a textualist when it suits you.

How about the 9th and 10th amendments for starters:

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Cons ution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Cons ution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Congress gets away with so many things not spelled out in their congressional powers using the commerce clause. Health is not commerce.

And, interestingly, States seem to be perfectly within their rights to demand that drivers purchase insurance as a precondition to driving. While I realize that driving is a privilege and that one could simply choose not to drive and avoid the obligation to purchase insurance, the ultimate consequence of such laws seems quite clearly to contradict your cons utional argument.

Bull .

We can be forced to buy auto insurance only because it is a privilege to drive.

Are you saying it's a privilege to live? I guess people don't have the privilege to live if they don't buy health insurance. Why do you believe that?

[FromWayDowntown]

Making someone buy a product they don't want is unethical, and not in the interest for the general welfare.

Then vote this group of Congresspeople out. That you disagree with what the elected Congress believes to be in the interest of the general welfare is not the test. That the elected Congress believes this bill to be in the interest of the general welfare is.

You think it's unethical; plenty of people think it's promoting the general welfare and perfectly ethical.

And if it turns out to be something that the general public thinks is not protecting its general welfare, these Congresspeople will be ousted and a different majority will take over and might repeal the law. That's the way the system works.

How about the 9th and 10th amendments for starters:

The 9th and 10th Amendments are inapplicable here because Congress is acting through an expressly enumerated power and the power is, accordingly, expressly delegated to the United States. In other words, the General Welfare clause and the Necessary & Proper Clauses trump the 9th and 10th Amendments -- and they do so expressly.

What I'm struck by, however, is the notion that the 9th and 10th Amendments somehow provide that people cannot be made to buy insurance or ensure that capitalism and free markets must exist in the United States. I realize that retreat to the broad terms of those amendments has become the sole refuge for those who contest this sort of legislation -- really, because there's nothing else in the Cons ution that would support any kind of cons utional challenge to it -- but that strikes me as exactly the support of non-textualism that admitted textualists like you decry.

Congress gets away with so many things not spelled out in their congressional powers using the commerce clause. Health is not commerce.

This is not a matter implicating the commerce clause -- at least I don't think it necessarily has to be. The expansive power of the Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to regulate things that aren't necessarily commerce, particularly if Congress concludes that the matter to be regulated will promote the general welfare.

You have an uncanny willingness to simply disregard cons utional authority that directly defeats your arguments.

[Wild Cobra]

You're a real head. Twisting our freedoms to nothingness.

[FromWayDowntown]

You're a real head. Twisting our freedoms to nothingness.

I'm not "twisting" anything. You suggested that what Congress was doing was uncons utional. I've merely refuted that suggestion on your part, by pointing to Cons utional text that permits Congress to do exactly what it's doing, and by demonstrating that your contentions to the contrary are baseless.

But I can tell you this: I don't twist the Cons ution to fit my desires. It says what it says. Sometimes the way that works out leaves me disappointed; sometimes the way that works out is an outcome I desire. That's what happens in a Cons utional system of government.

I haven't, to my knowledge, weighed in on the substance of health care reform -- mostly because I'm still not sure what is the right thing to do.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not "twisting" anything. You suggested that what Congress was doing was uncons utional. I've merely refuted that suggestion on your part, by pointing to Cons utional text that permits Congress to do exactly what it's doing, and by demonstrating that your contentions to the contrary are baseless.

But I can tell you this: I don't twist the Cons ution to fit my desires. It says what it says. Sometimes the way that works out leaves me disappointed; sometimes the way that works out is an outcome I desire. That's what happens in a Cons utional system of government.

I haven't, to my knowledge, weighed in on the substance of health care reform -- mostly because I'm still not sure what is the right thing to do.

You haven't refuted , but you are construing the words.

[FromWayDowntown]

You haven't refuted , but you are construing the words.

Okay, then tell me how the 9th or 10th Amendments trump Article I. Or tell me why legislation like this doesn't fit within the express grants of power in Article I, section 8 -- something other than the fact that you personally disagree with the legislation and the means it seeks to achieve.

Come on, I'm sure this will be easy . . . .

[MannyIsGod]