I was a republican, as well. Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general. I have said it before... Reagan would be too liberal for the tea party. Apparently, Huntsman is too. There has always been a wacked out component of the Republican party. Now they are driving the bus off the cliff. Started with Newt and Rush in the 90's.

this is really basic stuff Spence..but somehow, like our Constitutional Scholar-in-Chief, you spend all of your time and supposed knowledge undermining the Constitution...

[QUOTE=zimmy;926379]... Reagan would be too liberal for the tea party. QUOTE]

you've said this before with absolutely nothing as evidence.......there is a wealth of available audio and reading material of Reagan in his own words to better acquiant yourself with his political views which align quite nicely with Tea Party types on most issues and many on the right, you'll likely note that much of what is being debated in this current election was addressed quite thoroughly by Reagan...you should spend some time :uhuh:

here's one that is currently applicable..his radio addresses were brilliant..1961

There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent over owning more than 19,000 businesses covering different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.

But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman Administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand Bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.

Now, Congressman Ferrand brought the program out on that idea of just for that group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the- door philosophy, because he said “if we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.”

Walter Ruther said “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. Well, let’s see what the socialists themselves have to say about it.

They say: “Once the Ferrrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.’ Well, we can’t say we haven’t been warned.

Now, Congressman Ferrand is no longer a congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill, by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that in the last decade a hundred and twenty seven million of our citizens in just ten years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.

Now the advocates of this bill, when you try to oppose it, challenge you on an emotional basis. They say “What would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?” That’s ridiculous and of course no one’s has advocated it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr-Mills Bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried, to see if it works, they have introduced this King Bill which is really the Ferrand Bill.

What is the Kerr-Mills Bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens that I have mentioned. And it is provided from the federal government money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it. Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says “we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on the basis of age alone; regardless of whether they’re worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they’re protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.”

I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-Congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time – socialized medicine.


funny how history repeats itself

yup...barely any Republicans left in PA:uhuh:

Pennsylvania Legislature swears in new members; GOP has majority
Tuesday, January 04, 2011,
By The Associated Press The Associated Press

The Pennsylvania General Assembly began its new legislative session today by swearing in new and returning members and electing Republican veterans to lead each chamber.

Twenty-one freshmen Republicans and eight new Democrats were sworn in to the House, and Jefferson County Republican Sam Smith was elected speaker. The Senate swore in 25 members, including three Democratic freshmen, and elected Sen. Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, to a third term as president pro tempore.

Neither Smith nor Scarnati was opposed.

Smith urged members to live up to the responsibilities of their office, and gave the freshman class particular advice. "Don't read your own news releases, keep your feet on the ground and be mindful of why you wanted to be here and why the voters elected you," Smith said.

With both the House and Senate in GOP hands, and Republican Gov.-elect Tom Corbett preparing to be inaugurated Jan. 18, the Capitol is poised to take a rightward turn from the divided government of recent years. State government's massive deficit will be their first challenge.

House Republicans regained the majority in the November election after two terms in the minority; their margin is 112-91. The Senate has been firmly in GOP hands for many years, and its majority is currently 30-20. Each house also has a vacancy created by the death of a Democratic lawmaker.

I also count 1 Republican Senator and 1 Democrat Senator as well as 12 Republican Congresspeople and 7 Democrat Congresspeople

which Pennsylvania were you referring to ????

no company is denying access, they are denying paying for it. you and everyone else is free to get whatever birth control is legal. Its not a law that it has to be free.
BIG difference and the whole point of the discussion. Liberty does not equal paying for it!
You dont have to have sex. I am bald, should my company HAVE to pay for Rogain. No, its not essential to my health.
:uhuh:

I support insurance co covering it for all, but I also respect religious organizations beliefs and their right to exercise them. Where are all the libs that were foaming at the mouth over the Islamic center in NYC? Wasnt religious freedom the whole argument for it?
Liberal tolerance......

FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves - CNN.com


You can believe and speak about whatever you want as long as liberals dont disagree with it,.......tolerance my arse

" never stated that Federal law "guarantees workplace accessability to contraception."

First of all, you said this on this thread...

"Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception"

That's your quote. If you concede that there is NO LAW WHATSOEVER that requires employers to offer contraception, then why are we having this conversation? If there is no such law, from where does Obama get the authority to order an employer (Catholic Church) to offer contraceptives to its employees?

Spence, it seems like you're all over the place here...

"you might question the effectiveness of such teaching"

No, you and your liberal ilk should question the effectiveness of contraception. When libs demanded that contraception be made universally available diring the sexual revolution, they said that contraceptives would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and STD's. Turns out, your side could not have been more wrong (as usual), as the numbers of those things have skyrocketed now that we have transformed sex into a casual thing.

Not a great cultural leap forward in my book.

And refraining from the use of contraceptives is not a "binding belief" of the catechism. Some beliefs are "binding" - meaning, you are not allowed to disoute that Jesus is the son of God. Other beliefs (like saying the rosary, refraining from contraceptives) are non-binding.

Where to begin?

You're saying today's Democrats aren't more liberal than a generation ago? Condoms in elementary schools? Partial birth abortions? Willfully ignoring immigration laws? Giving public labor unions a blank check? Pretending that we're not at war with Islamic terrorists?

"Started with Newt and Rush in the 90's"

Yeah, Newt was a real nut. He (along with Bill Clinton, who I assume you also consider a right-wing nut) balanced the budget, cut spending, cut taxes, and got millions of welfare recipients back to work. God knows, none of those ideas has any usefulness today, right, Zimmy?

Our country is more polarized today than at any time since the Civil War, and I'm as guilty of that as anybody. Any group that thinks murderers have more of a right to live than unborn babies, who think that affirmative action isn't clearly unconstitutional, who is afraid to admit that there's any such thing as Islamic terrorists, who thinks it's OK to ignore immigration laws, and who thinks it's OK for states to go bankrupt to enrich public labor unions, is kooky in my opinion.

My side stands for individual freedom, compassion for those who need it, strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, supporting the free market. I can see how Zimmy sees these ideas as radical.

I'd love to see Spence try to respond to this in a rational way.

Spence, you keep saying that the Catholic church is "denying access". In what way are they denying access? If my employer won't give me a free Porsche, are they denhying my access to owning a Porsche?

The Catholic Church isn't telling these folks they can't use birth control. The Catholic Church is saying they cannot be forced to pay for it, because that requires them to abandon their religious beliefs, and they are correct.

There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche.

The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything.

First off, the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy.

Second, in the compromise position (when Obama reached across the aisle) institutions with moral objections would have been afforded an exemption from the contraception provision...under the assumption the insurance provider could offer it directly and at no cost to the insured.

-spence

wow....yup..that's what you exhale when you seek to continue right along undermining the Constitution....predictable:uhuh: you could argue that the government might madate just about anything throwing around all sorts of numbers and claims....the crux of the argument is the overreaching of the statist bunch that curently inhabits Washington...your arguments indicate that you don't think the government is limited by the Constitution as long as it in regard to things that you approve of:)

Allysia Finley: Coffee Is an Essential Benefit Too - WSJ.com

I think the crux of the argument is ensuring people get a base level of care in their insurance.

Coffee and Mormons? Really?

-spence

"There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche."

Spence, you keep spinning in circles here, so let's make it simply clear.

Is there, or is there not, a law which compels employers to offer free contraception to employees?

"The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything"

They weren't? Spence, here you go making it up as you go along. That's what started all of this, Obama wanted the church to pay for contraception.

"the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy."

That math may be simple, but it's also tragically flawed. First, if you assume that every single woman denied contraception has an unwanted pregnancy, then maybe it's cheaper to give her contraception. And maybe not, because are you sure an abortion costs more than a "few hundred dollars"?

Second, that analysis assumes that contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies. If that were true (and that's demonstrably false), why have there been so many more kids born out of wedlock AFTER contraception was made widely available?

Third, Catholics aren't concerned about dollars, we are concerned with that pesky First Amendment. you know, the one that liberals hold up to support the right of pornographers? Freedom of religion happens to be in there too.

Herein lies the dissonence in arguments about what the Constitution sought to prohibit. The Constitution PLAINLY circumscribes the limits of Federal power. But the Federal Government has PLAINLY exceeded those limits--to a point nearing omnipotence so that the Constitution can prohibit nothing. The Constitution, as written and intended, is irrelevant. It is the Federal Government now that does the granting and prohibiting. When some of us argue that a Federal mandate is unconstitutional, we are speaking in terms of the Constitution that was originally, clearly, plainly, written and intended. And the original intentions were clearly debated and recorded during and after the Constitutional convention and well after in commentaries by the founders and framers. When others argue about current legally protected "liberties" they are speaking of mandates created, for the most part, by unelected, unrepresentative Federal regulatory agencies, the existence of which does not comport with the Constitution.

points out the absurdity of your argument if this is the road that you want to go down setting a precedent to have future Congresses ramming legislation through in the manner that Obamacare was achieved, among other things, granting broad power to political appointees to create questionable mandates at will ....

The Times of London 1846

The greatest tyranny has the smallest beginnings. From precedents overlooked, from remonstrances despised, from grievances treated with ridicule, from powerless men oppressed with impunity, and overbearing men tolerated with complaisance, springs the tyrannical usage which generations of wise and good men may hereafter perceive and lament and resist in vain.

At present, common minds no more see a crushing tyranny in a trivial unfairness or a ludicrous indignity, than the eye uninformed by reason can discern the oak in the acorn, or the utter desolation of winter in the first autumnal fall. Hence the necessity of denouncing with unwearied and even troublesome perseverance a single act of oppression. Let it alone, and it stands on record. The country has allowed it, and when it is at last provoked to a late indignation it finds itself gagged with the record of its own ill compliance.


our founding documents

affirm individual rights(which pre-exist government "US Law")
acknowledge state's rights
limit the federal government's ability to infinge on those rights

like I said, not complicated...all of the numbers and talking points and spinning mean nothing...the answer/solution lies herein:uhuh:

hey Detbuch, did you know I was born in Ann Arbor, we were practically neighbors:)

There you go again, change what people say to fit your H.J. Simpson thought processes :) I'm sure you know, in PA there are districts where a Democrat may never win. I wasn't talking about the Hegin's pigeon shoot crowd. I was referring to the middle of the road Republican's who have left the party in pretty substantial numbers over the last decade or 2.

[QUOTE=scottw;926385]Tefra, Payroll taxes, amnesty for illegals. You apparently aren't very familiar with his policies? His words may jive with the flea party, but his policies aren't even close.

Republican Governor
Republican controlled state senate
Republican controlled state house of reps
1:1 Senators
12:7 Republican Conresspeople

apparently they aren't voting for democrats very much:uhuh:

what is your definition of "barely competitive"?

how do I "change what you say" if I quote you exactly?

never mind..I get it...:uhuh:

By taking my statement that the Republicans I knew growing up have switched or are independent and spinning it to "Yup, there are barely any Republicans left in PA." I know some in these forums like to pretend this is a jury'd professional journal and get antsy if the information isn't sited in APA format, so here at least is a link.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Fil...y_teixeira.pdf

"Political shifts in Pennsylvania since 1988 have seen the growing eastern part of the state swing toward the Democrats, producing four [actually, 5 and looking like 6] straight presidential victories for that party. "

Sort of supports what I said in my post, though not necessarily your "interpretation" of what I said.

???
not really...but this is fun...like a conversation with my 8 year olds:rotf2:

Noun 1. general election - a national or state election; candidates are chosen in all constituencies

Wiki (ZIMMY)Answers

What is a general election?

In: Politics and Government, Elections, Political Parties

A general election is an election in which all or most members of a given political body are up for election.

General election is also a term used in opposition to primary election. In the United States, primary elections serve to narrow down a field of candidates, and general elections actually elect candidates to offices. The general election is usually held on Election Day, the Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even-numbered years.
It meets the above definition of "general election" in that the entire United States House of Representatives is elected on Election Day, though not the entire United States Congress. Prior to the 17th Amendment, members of the United States Senate were not directly elected by the people but rather by their state legislature. Though Senators have been directly elected since then, only one-third of them are up for election on any given Election Day. The U.S. President is also chosen during a November general election that follows primaries.


Originally Posted by zimmy
There you go again, change what people say to fit your H.J. Simpson thought processes I'm sure you know, in PA there are districts where a Democrat may never win. I wasn't talking about the Hegin's pigeon shoot crowd. I was referring to the middle of the road Republican's who have left the party in pretty substantial numbers over the last decade or 2. doesn't show based on the Pa election outcomes....see above

Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general. Originally Posted by zimmy



show me where Pa(Republicans) is/are "barely competitive " in the general election which is what I had issue with and why I put it in bold and pointed out(pretty clearly) the error in that statement...

That is about your level of discourse :jump1: I guess you are trying to tell me you thought I was talking about state elections when I said "the general"? Ron White might have an appropriate quote for you...:uhuh:

it's just honest...and accurate

state reps/senators/ governor, congress/ senate and pres...you got pres....and forgot the rest and it's hardly representative of your claim

btw Pa is in "toss up" at the moment and that's with a generic republican which doesn't really resemble "barely competitive"

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Battle for White House

between...

Reagan being too liberal for the modern Republican party

the economy cranking up for an easy Obama win ( as his approval ratings plummet to 41%) you should also check out the most recent NBC/WSJ poll and scroll to ECONOMY and see what Americans have to say about their vews of the economy(not good for Obama)

and the Republican party in Pa being abandoned in droves since your youth leaving the state in control of the Democrats


you're not making a lot of sense..but I love ya and if it makes you happy...that's cool

I don't know who Ron White is...

but "level of discourse"???

"There has always been a wacked out component of the Republican party. Now they are driving the bus off the cliff
change what people say to fit your H.J. Simpson thought processes
I wasn't talking about the Hegin's pigeon shoot crowd
His words may jive with the flea party"

if you are going to dish...please don't whine...it's unseemly

[QUOTE=zimmy;926715]Tefra...a Reagan policy?
TEFRA was created in order to reduce the budget gap by generating revenue through closure of tax loopholes and introduction of tougher enforcement of tax rules, as opposed to changing marginal income tax rates.
Ronald Reagan agreed to the tax hikes on the promise from Congress of a $3 reduction in spending for every $1 increase in taxes. One week after TEFRA was signed, H.R. 6863 - the Supplemental Appropriations Act(SPENDING) of 1982 which Ronald Reagan claimed would "bust the budget" was passed by both houses of Congress over his veto.


amnesty...a Reagan policy? a compromise he later regretted, he supported sanctions on employers who employed illegals which were called "draconian".... and supported Simpson saying " I’ll sign it. It’s high time we regained control of our borders and his bill will do this.”


Payroll taxes....I think we've learned that it's a mistake to compromise with dems(and many repubs) with regard to tax increases, particularly when they accompany promised spending reductions that never seem to materialize:uhuh:

hey Zim..is this the kind of Pennsylvania Republican that you yearn for? :)

Specter says Obama ditched him after he provided 60th vote to pass health reform
By Alexander Bolton - 03/12/12

Former Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) writes in a new book that President Obama ditched him in the 2010 election after he helped Obama win the biggest legislative victory of his term by passing healthcare reform.

Specter laments that Obama and Vice President Biden did not do more to help him in the final days of his primary race against former Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), who beat him 54 percent to 46 percent in the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate Democratic primary.

Specter writes that Obama turned down a request to campaign with him in the final days of the primary, because the president’s advisers feared he would look weak if he intervened and Specter lost.

Specter was also disappointed that Biden, who was only a few blocks away at Penn University, did not attend a pre-primary day rally at the Phillies’s Citizens Bank Park — a missed opportunity Specter attributes to a failed staff-to-staff request.

Specter believes Reid acted with “duplicity” while managing the party switch. Specter said Reid promised him that he would be recognized on the seniority list as a Democrat elected in 1980, but failed to deliver on it.

Had Specter been given the seniority he was promised, he would have become chairman of the powerful Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations subcommittee and next in line to chair the Judiciary Committee.

Instead, Reid stripped Specter of all his seniority by passing a short resolution by unanimous consent in a nearly-empty chamber, burying him at the bottom of the Democrats’ seniority list.

Specter found out about it after his press secretary emailed him a press account of the switch. Specter was floored that Reid had “violated a fundamental Senate practice to give personal notice to a senator directly affected by the substance of a unanimous consent agreement.”

conversely...:)

“When I told him I was going to change parties, he(Mitch McConnell) was visibly displeased but not ruffled. Mostly, he was taciturn,” Specter recounts. “McConnell and I had a serious discussion. He was very nice and very professional. ‘Don’t do it,’ he said. ‘It’d be a big mistake. Serve out your time as a Republican and retire gracefully.’”








Specter says Obama ditched him after he provided 60th vote to pass health reform - TheHill.com

I do like these maps, as it usually comes down to a state or two...

FL, and likely NC, will not be toss-ups come from November. I predict that PA, OH, VA decide 2012.

I love it when liberals use insulting language, then act all offended when we reply similarly...

Spence, still waiting for you to tell me about the skyrocketing energy costa that Obama inherited, given that gas was under 2 bucks when he got sworn in???

oops...didn't see this coming....right???

CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs

byPhilip Klein Senior

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.

The problem with the strict view is that there's no do-over. Quite possibly a limited Federal government would have led to bloated and inefficient States and a Nation unable to achieve what it has.

My guess is the SCOTUS upholds the HCB with Roberts actually supporting it in narrow terms. The argument for regulation under the commerce clause does appear to be pretty good. We'll soon find out...

If it's prudent is another issue and a political one.

-spence

[QUOTE=scottw;926900]Glad to see you at least agree that his policies are too liberal for the tea party.

The odds of SCOTUS upholding the HCB are fairly good. The Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, the Necessary and Proper clause, the Due Process Clause, and others have been intentionally "interpreted" in the past to mean what they were not meant to mean and what is clearly not stated in the Constitution. This has created the mass of Bad Case Law and accepted Law necessary for this country to function as a regulatory, administrative State rather than a Constitutionally representative one. Striking down the HCB could lead to reversals of what has been built, and if done too quickly, it could lead to widespread hardship. The more conservative constitutionally leaning justices have an onerous task. The progressive ones, like Kagan who is in favor not only of the HCB, but of the administrative State, will have no doubts as to their verdict or its consequences.

Spence, I'm really curious to know what, in your opinion, is the good argument for regulation under the commerce clause?

More likely it would be better with Home Rule and a small Fed Govt. allowing the people close access to the governing officials and issues.
For instance, when you have a gripe in your community or county, you can attend Council or Freeholder meetings to express your opinions and keep an eye on local and State issues.You are a face.
Except for an occasional Town Hall Meeting, phone call or e-mail you are just a
number to the Feds.
Can't imagine anything more bloated, inefficient or wastefull than things are now.

Hi, almost neighbor. How did the liberal bastions Ann Arbor and Detroit produce such as we? Being in the belly of the beast teaches the causes of it's dyspepsia.

Your 1846 Times of London piece shows the timelessness of human nature. You can find these gems written as far back as the ancient civilizations. We have a fundamental kinship with our ancient predecessors that belies the notion that we are a product of history rather than history being a product of us. The belief that history, governments, and constitutions are living entities that change or become outdated, obsolete, because of historical progress ignores our nature, and sees it also as evolving through historical progress. It is as though the American Revolution and the form of government that was founded was the high point in some historical movement to experiment with some peculiar notion of "individual liberty," and was fine as a point in history when monarchs and tyrants still ruled and when human nature had not historically evolved beyond it's good and bad elements. The Constitution was fine for a time when individuals had to protect themselves against the inclination in their nature to violate other's rights in order to profit. But now, we have been transported by history to a point in time where we can educate the elimination of the bad in our nature. So we no longer need to fear our rulers, for they will, by dint of historical progress, be benevolent, keeping as their trust the improvement of humanity by a more efficient governmental administrative system. So we don't need the cumbersome constitutional system which has lost its meaning in the modern world. That it has been a stealth revolution rather than a bloody one is evidence that history has solved the barbaric practice of men to bring about change only with violence. That, unbeknownst to the citizens, their form of government, one founded on a Constitution which was almost religiously revered, had been through political slight of hand, changed to fit the era in which they live. There is still a pretense of adhering to that document, but the language used has different meaning than the original document. Words like commerce, regulate, general welfare, among the States, and so on, mean something different to today's legislators and judges than what they meant to the framers. So the Constitution has been brought to life, to fit in with the other living abstractions of the modern age, such as government and history. Ideas have been given a living, breathing, quality by the progressive age. And as such, they have a new type of nature--not one that is fundamental and unchanging, but one that constantly evolves. No telling what evolution the living, breathing "history" will go through. No doubt that historical progress will make it an even better, more improved version.

My understanding is that the argument against is that if I opt out of insurance, there's no activity to be regulated and the Federal government can't regulate inactivity...i.e. no commerce.

But we all know that the uninsured place a large burden on the entire health care system nationally.

So there's really no such thing as inactivity.

Perhaps this is simplistic, but I believe is at the core of the Administration's case, at least in respect to the commerce clause. And to me it does make perfect sense.

That's not to say the entire legislation is perfect. I think there are many other measures regarding tort reform and competition that could also help reduce costs.

-spence

As I have agreed with you, there is a good chance that the Court will uphold the HCB, because of settled "interpretations" that have rewritten the Constitution. That we don't, as a society, see the erosion of our individual liberties by allowing another far-reaching intrusion into our lives because we are worried about the cost of health care means that we have accepted the administrative state as our benevolent benefactor, and have abrogated not only our personal responsibility to secure our own health care, but also our personal responsibility to secure the rights that were originally granted in the Constitution. And we, as individual sovereigns envisioned by the Founders, and including the Congress and POTUS, were all to be guardians of the Constitution, not just the SCOTUS. When Bush (my turn to insert the Bush did-it-too syndrome) did not veto the finance reform bill saying that he believed it was unconstitutional, but he was leaving it to the Court to decide, he was, in my opinion, in dereliction of his duty. We also, by our consent and acquiesence to whatever the Court says, are derelict in ours. But, who knows? there has been a small trend to originalism in the Court, and there is a crescendo rising in political discourse about return to Constitutional governance. Maybe the Court will try to reverse the course of Federal expansion.

I've read that about a $1000 of a health care insurance premium is actually to compensate for costs born by the uninsured. This seems to be to be a quite irregular situation that would benefit by being made regular.

I think you just made the Administration's case :hihi:

Of course if we were to mandate that everybody is on their own...

At the time the Constitution was drafted most health care was dispensed by ones barber. Today my x-ray is read in near real-time by a doctor in India.


I thought conservatism subscribed to the belief in the value of mundane knowledge that has been weathered by time. If a court finds an interpretation of the Constitution to be valid -- and it's stood the test of time -- doesn't this enter somehow into the mundane collective?

While there should be tremendous respect for the founding fathers obviously, doesn't the wisdom of those who've followed also count for something?

-spence

It's not about respect for the Founders. It's about what kind of government you want. I don't find collectivism, and all-powerful, unrepresentative government to be wise.

a repeating theme when the two of you engage is that one argues specifically for or against something and the other is constantly proposing muddled arguments around something...usually the Constitution

what has been specifically said is:

In Virginia v. Sebelius, Judge Henry Hudson overturned the law, claiming that failure to purchase health insurance coverage could not be considered economic activity, being rather economic "inactivity."

In Liberty University v. Geithner, Judge Norman Moon upheld the law, countering that:
"Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance."

Similarly, in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, judge George Steeh ruled that such decisions have "a documented impact on interstate commerce."

love to know how an individual choosing not to purchase health insurance has been documented to impact interstate commerce...:uhuh:

to argue for Obamacare Spence, you have to argue around the founding documents, you have to argue that creating an enormous Federal Bureaucracy with unlimited power vested in individuals through government and over individuals somehow fits nicely into the original plan of "inalienable" individual rights and government limitations....you are also setting a precedent for future expansion that will really be unlimited, you cannot argue for this and then down the road complain about expansion in areas that you might disagree with, by individuals with agendas that you might disagree with and claim that the government may not mandate and fine you for non-compliance because you're now granting them broad authority over the individual....which really contradicts that intent at our founding......

you were right about something..in this instance..we don't get a do-over

Progressives know full well and admit that they intend to contradict the intent of the founders. They believe the founding document is outdated and irrelevant. They realize it would be too difficult, at this time, to formally rewrite the Constitution through a new Con-Con, amending it is too slow as well as too dificult, so they informally rewrite it through progressive jurisprudence redefining the meaning of the words. And, yes, the progressive aim is to give unlimited power to the Central Gvt. bureacracy. And this authority over the individual is for his own benefit. That you express concern that future administrations might not be as benevolent to the People as current progressives claim to be, is unwarranted. We have arrived at a point in history when the People and the administrators understand the necessity of fairness and equality. Our educational institutions teach and profess this as the true and necessary mission of our lives. The "individual" cannot stand out as separate from the community if we are to achieve total fairness and equality. And the community expresses itself in the benevolent State. The community, the State, and the individual are part of one and the same living, breathing, entity. You do not have to fear malevolent future administrations. They are part of the same living organism as is the individual. They are one and the same.

Here's another read for you:

Posted at 12:00 PM ET, 06/10/2011TheWashingtonPost
Is health care cost-shifting real?

By Jennifer Rubin


In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit earlier this week, the government’s lawyer and the Obamacare challengers’ lawyer faced off on the legality of the individual mandate. The Obama administration’s lawyer was on the defensive, as the Associated Press reported:


Acting U.S. Solicitor Neal Katyal sought to ease their concerns by saying the legislative branch can only exercise its powers to regulate commerce if it will have a substantial effect on the economy and solve a national, not local, problem. Health care coverage, he said, is unique because of the billions of dollars shifted in the economy when Americans without coverage seek medical care.

“That’s what stops the slippery slope,” he said.

As a preliminary matter, this sort of rationale is inappropriate for constitutional analysis. If the Constitution prohibits the government from forcing you to buy something you don’t want, why does a policy argument (cost-shifting) suddenly bestow constitutional legitimacy on the individual mandate? The idea that “because we have a really good reason for doing it so it must be constitutional” is in fact the “slippery slope” personified. The government invariably is convinced it has a really good reason for doing something; it’s the courts’ job to determine if the text and framework of the Constitution allow it to do it.

Yuval Levin has a more compelling rebuttal: The argument isn’t true. He writes:


[C]ost shifting from the uninsured to the insured today is pretty negligible. Cost shifting from Medicaid—which pays doctors very poorly, forcing them to overcharge patients with private insurance—is greater, but it will grow, not shrink, under Obamacare, since the law would vastly expand the scope of Medicaid coverage without reforming the program. Cost shifting does not provide a legal justification for the individual mandate, but it does contribute to the policy argument for repealing Obamacare.

Levin references a Wall Street Journal op-ed by John Cogan, Glenn Hubbard and Daniel Kessler. In that piece the authors explain:


A study conducted by George Mason University Prof. Jack Hadley and John Holahan, Teresa Coughlin and Dawn Miller of the Urban Institute, and published in the journal Health Affairs in 2008, found that so-called cost shifting raises private health insurance premiums by a negligible amount. The study’s authors conclude: “Private insurance premiums are at most 1.7 percent higher because of the shifting of the costs of the uninsured to private insurance.” For the typical insurance plan, this amounts to approximately $80 per year.

The Health Affairs study is supported by another recent peer- reviewed study that focused exclusively on physicians. That 2007 study, authored by Massachusetts Institute of Technology economists Jonathan Gruber and David Rodriguez and published in the Journal of Health Economics, found no evidence that doctors charged insured patients higher fees to cover the cost of caring for the uninsured.
The authors argue that the government relied on sloppy, flawed studies to come up with the cost-shifting rationale. They explain:


Specifically, Congress ignored the $40 billion to $50 billion that is spent annually by charitable organizations and federal, state and local governments to reimburse doctors and hospitals for the cost of caring for the uninsured. These payments, which amount to approximately three-fourths of the cost of such care, mitigate the extent of cost shifting and reduce the magnitude of the hidden tax on private insurance.

Moreover, the economics of markets for health services suggests that any cost shifting that may occur is unlikely to affect interstate commerce. Because markets for doctor and hospital services are local--not national--the impact of cost shifting will be borne where it occurs, not across state lines.

If accurate, this is quite a problem from a policy perspective for the defenders of the individual mandate. If the free-rider problem (as Mitt Romney liked to refer to it) is virtually nonexistent there certainly must be cheaper ways to address the problem of the uninsured. And if in the Medicare system Obamacare duplicates the Medicaid problem (“Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals are so low that the program creates a cost shift of its own”), Obamacare will dramatically increase cost-shifting. As the adage goes, you’ll see how expensive health care will be when it’s free.

The lesson here applies not only to Obamacare. Government schemes to monkey with the marketplace are rarely as precise as their creators would have us believe. Central control is and always has been a poor substitute for real marketplaces in which willing sellers and buyers set prices. When the government forces or cajoles buyers into the market (whether it be to purchase health care or “affordable” housing) it rarely turns out as planned.

By Jennifer Rubin | 12:00 PM ET, 06/10/2011

There is a bothersome component to the idealogical thinking on the left that is reflected in their elected officials, pundints and among their supporters which is:

"we are smarter than you, we know what's good for you and you are obviously too stupid(insert various pejoratives) to "get it"...and since you don't "get it" we are obligated to make you "get it"....

I'd look for some serious domestic unrest over the next year...it's already starting :uhuh: