Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

∞∞∞ wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2219276420100322

I love this state!

dbackjon wrote:Good luck with that waste of money

dbackjon wrote:Good luck with that waste of money

ToTheLeft wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Good luck with that waste of money

There's really no words to describe the ignorance/naivety of highly indoctrinated donks.

I'd rather waste money fighting terrible, unconstitutional legislation, than waste money on trying to "fix" healthcare by involving the government, which as well all know, is famous for it's fiscal responsibility.

ToTheLeft wrote:Then fix it! Don't get the government involved in running it, that won't make it better. Pass laws, sweeping reform to the way insurance works, not taking money out of the hands of those who earn it, and putting it into the wallets of those who waste it.

ToTheLeft wrote:Heh, so instead of going that route, we're going to have a bunch of liars and thieves who cheat their way to the top with money slipped under the table in all sorts of deals, running the health care system.

dbackjon wrote:Universal Health Care - Single Payor is the cheapest, most effective route. Unfortunately, the right does not want this.

Why does the right oppose the cheapest, most effective solution?

houndawg wrote: In this universe laws are written by lobbyists, congresspersons are paid off, and we get the laws the insurance companies want us to have.

houndawg wrote:

ToTheLeft wrote:Heh, so instead of going that route, we're going to have a bunch of liars and thieves who cheat their way to the top with money slipped under the table in all sorts of deals, running the health care system.

You just described the present system to a T.

Miley Cyrus wrote:edit

dbackjon wrote:Universal Health Care - Single Payor is the cheapest, most effective route. Unfortunately, the right does not want this.

Why does the right oppose the cheapest, most effective solution?

danefan wrote:A lot of states will sue. Besides the Nebraska issue, there is a fundamental issue that will need to be decided here I think. Does the US Consistution allow the federal government to force people to have health insurance?

OL FU wrote:

danefan wrote:A lot of states will sue. Besides the Nebraska issue, there is a fundamental issue that will need to be decided here I think. Does the US Consistution allow the federal government to force people to have health insurance?

This is one of the more interesting aspects of the entire discussion for anyone that has an interest (even a small one like me) in constitutional law. The commerce clause has been interpreted to allow federal regulation of almost everything but the requirement of an individual to participate in a commerical activity (which is what buying health insurance is) is a new twist in the debate. This court might be inclined to say that requirement is an unconstitutional over reach.

Of course if they do that they probably shouldn't go anywhere near the state of the union address

danefan wrote:

OL FU wrote:
This is one of the more interesting aspects of the entire discussion for anyone that has an interest (even a small one like me) in constitutional law. The commerce clause has been interpreted to allow federal regulation of almost everything but the requirement of an individual to participate in a commerical activity (which is what buying health insurance is) is a new twist in the debate. This court might be inclined to say that requirement is an unconstitutional over reach.

Of course if they do that they probably shouldn't go anywhere near the state of the union address

Yes it is a very interesting consitutional question. States require car insurance under the philosophy that doing so protects its citizens from the negligence of others (e.g. the little old lady in the crosswalk is protected by the crazy driver's insurance).

That is likely the theory that the government would argue here - protection for the masses against the burdens (financial and otherwise) resulting from the uninsured. Other than that I can't see a strong argument under current constitutional law precedent to force anyone into a commerical transaction.

The problem here is that SCOTUS won't have original jurisdiction on this issue which means the case will have to go through the District and Circuit courts before it gets to SCOTUS, which could take years. I'm also wondering whether there is precedent that grants standing to the States as Plaintiffs here. Easy fix though just subsitituting any old Jane Smith that doesn't want to pay for insurance.

OL FU wrote:

danefan wrote:
Yes it is a very interesting consitutional question. States require car insurance under the philosophy that doing so protects its citizens from the negligence of others (e.g. the little old lady in the crosswalk is protected by the crazy driver's insurance).

That is likely the theory that the government would argue here - protection for the masses against the burdens (financial and otherwise) resulting from the uninsured. Other than that I can't see a strong argument under current constitutional law precedent to force anyone into a commerical transaction.

The problem here is that SCOTUS won't have original jurisdiction on this issue which means the case will have to go through the District and Circuit courts before it gets to SCOTUS, which could take years. I'm also wondering whether there is precedent that grants standing to the States as Plaintiffs here. Easy fix though just subsitituting any old Jane Smith that doesn't want to pay for insurance.

Isn't the difference that states aren't limited in regulating business (except for certain consitutional protections) while the constitution was written (supposely) to inhibit the federal government from certain activities. I think that is the easy argument for states reagrding auto insurance plus the fact that the states don't require an individual to drive there fore they don't require an individual to buy auto insurance.

Can't the SCOTUS over rule to some extent jurisdictional constraints. BUSH v GORE made it to the SCOTUS pretty quickly realizing there was a little issue of who would be president.

danefan wrote:

OL FU wrote:
Isn't the difference that states aren't limited in regulating business (except for certain consitutional protections) while the constitution was written (supposely) to inhibit the federal government from certain activities. I think that is the easy argument for states reagrding auto insurance plus the fact that the states don't require an individual to drive there fore they don't require an individual to buy auto insurance.

Can't the SCOTUS over rule to some extent jurisdictional constraints. BUSH v GORE made it to the SCOTUS pretty quickly realizing there was a little issue of who would be president.

Yes, the States aren't limited by the Commerce Clause like the Feds are. Just thinking this through more and more, I think the government has a pretty solid Commerce Clause argument here for the constitutionality of the law.

The theory could be that Congress is really trying to protect the citizens in insurance market. Because insurers won't be able to deny coverage for pre-exisitng conditions, healthy people won't buy insurance (until after they got sick or hurt) and premiums would skyrocket for everyone else, who then would drop their insurance until they needed it That would likely lead to the whole insurance market would likely collapse. I think they'll win on that theory alone.

If not, I think you're right - I think state's aren't nearly as restricted and Congress could force States to pass the same law on a state basis by incentivising federal funding, exactly like it did with the drinking age and unemployment insurance.

I'm not nearly as educated in con law theory as some others here are. I wonder what Joltin Joe's opinion is.

OL FU wrote:

danefan wrote:
Yes, the States aren't limited by the Commerce Clause like the Feds are. Just thinking this through more and more, I think the government has a pretty solid Commerce Clause argument here for the constitutionality of the law.

The theory could be that Congress is really trying to protect the citizens in insurance market. Because insurers won't be able to deny coverage for pre-exisitng conditions, healthy people won't buy insurance (until after they got sick or hurt) and premiums would skyrocket for everyone else, who then would drop their insurance until they needed it That would likely lead to the whole insurance market collapsing. I think they'll win on that theory alone.

If not, I think you're right - I think state's aren't nearly as restricted and Congress could force States to pass the same law on a state basis by incentivising federal funding, exactly like it did with the drinking age and unemployment insurance.

I'm not nearly as educated in con law theory as some others here are. I wonder what Joltin Joe's opinion is.

Well I am more of a read what the words say kinda guy, so I think mandating a commercial pusuit is a reach. However, I also know the court has reached before so........... Not sure what all the Supreme Court would take into consideration but once you mandate one commercial pursuit what is limiting the government to mandate another.

My guess is if any of this bill is overturned, the politics of forcing the states to do this through federal funding, won't fly. Just my two cents.

They had better start talking nice about Justice Roberts