[tomder55]

What kind of reform is it ? They answer the issue of uninsured by forcing people to buy it ? They force States to expand their Medicaid regardless of the financial situation in the States ;regardless of what other services needs to be cut to achieve this expansion ?

This so called reform does nothing to reduce costs and the biggest beneficiaries are the industries you claim are the biggest problems. They will fleece the American taxpayer for 5 years before any of these alleged benefits kick in .

But you are right about one thing. Finance Chairman Max Baucus admitted in a floor speech that the goal is to ram it into law while the political window is still open, and clean up the mess later.

[speechlesstx]

Is that constitutional for the feds to cover the cost of Medicaid expansion forever in only one state? These guys have no shame.

[excon]

What kind of reform is it ?

Hello again, tom:

From MY perspective?? None. Oh, there's some insurance regulation that's good, but we're paying for it, and NOT the insurance companies... That's NOT reform.

The ONLY reason I MIGHT support it, is because of the PROMISE that it'll be changed more to my liking sometime in the future...

That is absolutely the WRONG reason to support legislation. But, if it's defeated, it won't be addressed again for a generation.

excon

[speechlesstx]

NK's favorite Michelle Malkin has a list of some of the payoffs, "cash for cloture."

[tomder55]

Not sure about the Constitutionality of that. The ever broadening interpretation of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses as interpreted by SCOTUS appears to give Congress almost carte blanche to do whatever they like .Since it in not unpecedented for Congress to pass mandates that the States have to foot the bill for (including Medicaid mandates already in effect) I have no doubt this move will pass SCOTUS challenges.

[excon]

NK's favorite Michelle Malkin has a list of some of the payoffs, "cash for cloture."

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, passing legislation is a messy business... But, you're not saying, are you, that when Republicans were in charge, they DIDN'T do the same thing?? Nahh, you're not saying that - cause you're an honest fellow.

excon

[excon]

Not sure about the Constitutionality of that. The ever broadening interpretation of the Commerce Clause.....

Hello again, tom:

For MY $.02 cents, it's UN-Constitutional.. In fact, it's the Commerce Clause that the government cites as the basis for telling you what you CAN'T buy, like marijuana. You support THAT interpretation, don't you? If that's Constitutional, and I'll bet you think it is, it's only a small step from them telling you what you HAVE to buy.

I don't think how we spend our money is their business AT ALL.

excon

PS> I keep telling you Righty's that you better support ALL of our Constitutional rights, because if you don't, the ONE you DO support is going to be next.

THIS is a perfect example of that phenomenon.

[tomder55]

Actually there are plenty of laws prohibiting what you can buy. Fewer are laws that compel you to buy something .That's a completely different can of worms. I can think of State mandates to buy auto insurance to protect the other person from you. But even there the self insurance is voluntary.

[excon]

actually there are plenty of laws prohibiting what you can buy.

Hello again, tom:

Like I said, you're cool with the laws that tell you what you CAN'T buy. You just don't like the ones telling you what you MUST buy.

I don't see a tinkers damn bit of Constitutional difference.

excon

[tomder55]

You don't think there should be any controls of what can be purchased ?

[excon]

you don't think there should be any controls of what can be purchased ?

Hello again, tom:

Uhhhh, no... Ok, I'll draw the line at nukes and F'16's.

excon

PS> I don't know, tom. You believe in a free market, or not. You're sounding positively LIBERAL here. Of course, I've been saying that about the DEA, which is a nothing more than LIBERAL social program disguised as law enforcement...

[tomder55]

Conservatives believe the market should be free of EXCESS regulation . We don't believe in a free for all. Businesses and the marketplace should be subject to reasonable regulations.
Now you could argue that my view of the drug market is unreasonable and that is a legitimate debate . I think that if a product is marketted and it is going to harm the consumer it should be controlled or prohibited .

There is of course an easy way to get your way. Vote people in that agree with you .

I am just waiting to manufacture belladona capsules and to market them as a weight loss product. Are you sure I should have the right to do that ?

[excon]

I am just waiting to manufacture belladona capsules and to market them as a weight loss product. Are you sure I should have the right to do that ?

Hello again, tom:

You can't lie. That's already against the law. But if you label it for what it is, and people want to buy it, why not?

What? You think that prohibiting people from buying stuff they WANT, is going to keep it out of their hands?? As a drug warrior, I suppose you WOULD think that.

excon

[tomder55]

As I said on another op ;Roosevelt did a clever tap dance to make SS constitutional. He sold it as an insurance policy ;but argued at SCOTUS that the payroll deduction was not a premium but a tax.

Now the President has been saying that the individual mandate is not a tax . But as far as I can tell there is no interpretation of the commerce clause so broad that includes the mandatory purchase of a product.

If I had the means I would self insure and make a court case of this . But I have no doubt ,in court, the administration would do the same thing as Roosevelt .

[tomder55]

Hello again, tom:

You can't lie. That's already against the law. But if you label it for what it is, and people want to buy it, why not?

What? You think that prohibiting people from buying stuff they WANT, is going to keep it out of their hands?? As a drug warrior, I suppose you WOULD think that.

OK then I guess you think that all those pharmaceutical products that were approved and then proven to be harmful should remain on the market ? Is that what you are saying ?

[tomder55]

By the way I am writing letters to Senators Shumer and Gillibrand asking them why NY is not included in the deal to have the Federal Government foot the bill for the Medicaid expansion liabilities . Everyone with a Democrat Senator from a state besides the few exempted should demand that they get the same deal.

[speechlesstx]

Not so quick on the Dems going down in flames and/or getting flamier, they're pinning their election hopes next year on Obamacare - and blaming Bush. Axelrod seems to think that once the public gets wind of all the magnificent things the Dems have done for all those Americans who don't know any better against their wishes, that they'll jump on board. Should get interesting, both sides running on Obamacare.

[excon]

ok then I guess you think that all those pharmaceutical products that were approved and then proven to be harmful should remain on the market ? Is that what you are saying ?

Hello again, tom:

Yup, that's what I'm saying... Of course, as long as the press does its job of reporting the danger.

There are LOTS of dangers out there. I don't want the state to be my nanny... You? Looks like.

excon

[tomder55]

As long as the press does its job

Bwaaaaahaaaahaaaaa!! And they were elected to do that ? If a pharmaceutical company is selling an unsafe product they have no right to be in the business of selling that product.

A total absence of regulation is effectively the same as a total absence of government. As a conservative I look for as small a government as is possible .But I thought you agreed as a libertarian that anarchy is a bad thing. If your product is going to do harm to a person it is the gvt's duty to restrict ,ban ,or regulate it.

Do you think building codes are a good thing; or should a anyone who can splice two pieces of wire together be the electrician for your home ? I know that with the gvt inspection requirements there is more of the chance that my home was built to a certain standard of safety . Without the codes I wouldn't know which home I purchased was safe ;and which was a hazard .
When the government restricts me from doing legitimate business it is overreaching .When the government prevents me from doing business that can harm they are doing their job.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

Imagine that. You arguing for regulation, and me not. Go figure.

excon