Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:03 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:03 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
What's the plan if we repeal?

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:19 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5529
Bucfan wrote:
What is the "plan B" if the program's cost spirals out of control? What then?


Invade Iran and/or Pakistan! :D

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4151
Location: Zelienople, PA
Bucfan wrote:

What is the "plan B" if the program's cost spirals out of control? What then?
l

You know the deal Bucfan. Protect the system at all costs. Let more people go without care that can not be afforded. Stifle R&D by raising taxes to take away from ROI and applied to R&D for new technologies.

... I'd say death panels, but that is not PC right now.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10582
Substitute2 wrote:
What's the plan if we repeal?

History and economic theory show that reducing the market cost for a product or service is done by reducing the costs for preparing, making, supplying and/or bringing to market the good or service, and/or by increasing supply.

The worst way to "control costs" is by way of insurance. Wonder why getting a freaking fender repaired costs so much? Or why medical care is so expensive?

Here is why:

Before insurance, I am willing to spend $500 to fix the fender and get the car re-painted, or $5000 for the appendectomy.

Insurance is put into play. I am STILL willing to spend that money for the same goods and service. Insurance does not change that. So the market honors the true market price, by way of "deductible" or "co-pay."

I pay a $500 deductible for the fender, and the insurance pays the other $900. That repair would have cost $500 in a competitive market, but now cost $1400 due to insurance.

Same is true for medical care. It is another service industry. Yes, yes, I get the fact that it is expensive, involves life and death on occasion. That is why the market price for medical care starts out higher. And why insurance then simply adds to that price.

If you want to lower medical costs, let more health care practitioners into the field. Reduce liability exposure and malpractice costs for health care practitioners. Increase the availability and number of medical insurers. (I am not unrealistic. I know that medical insurance is going nowhere, because the medical insurance carriers and doctors both make money or more money on their existence. My proposal seeks simply to add some market forces to lower these costs.) Let medical insurace become portable and personal, and be permitted from one state to another.

That will lower medical costs.

Enacting a government-run program forcing insurance on consumers will not. Seriously, what economic theory backs up the proposal that adding demand (more consumers of medical services since people are now forced to buy insurance even when they do not want or need it) and doing nothing to increase supply will lower the cost?

What will happen is the same as has occurred in Great Britain, and Canada: Rationing. In 2009, during the health care debate, the NYT explained why health care should be rationed*:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magaz ... wanted=all

Increased demand, static supply, longer waits for MRI scans, or surgeries, particularly non-life threatening surgeries like ACL repairs, or meniscus repair ... or perhaps for things like cancer treatement and dialysis.

Long wait times for access to certain health care procedures are a concern in the Canadian health care system.

http://canadaonline.about.com/od/health ... Canada.htm

"Despite government promises and the billions of dollars funnelled into the Canadian health-care system, the average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required," said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the 17th annual edition of Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/200 ... raser.html

Physician Choice. Patients have very little physician choice. However, under the experimental London Patient Choice Project, patients waiting more than six months for treatment will be offered a choice of four different treatment providers.

Waiting Times. Waiting lists are a huge problem in Great Britain. Some examples: 750,000 are on waiting lists for hospital admission; 40% of cancer patients are never able to see an oncologist; there is explicit rationing for services such as kidney dialysis, open heart surgery and care for the terminally ill. Further, minimum waiting times have been instituted to reduce costs. “A top-flight hospital like Suffolk Est PCT was ordered to impose a minimum waiting time of at least 122 days before patients could be treated or the hospital would lose a portion of its funding.”

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04 ... t-britain/

A nationalized health care mandate will (1) not lower the cost of medical care and all history and economic theory indicates that it is likely to increase costs, and (2) will result in health care rationing since the demand will outstrip supply.

* Well, for others, I mean, not for the editors of the NYT, or important guys like that.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:46 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
You have obviously given a great deal of thought to this subject. I commend you for that. Some of what you say makes sense to me but much of it does not.
I agree that we need more providers so that demand doesn't exceed supply by such a huge margin. The problem is that we will not get that. As with almost all our industries, competition which brings lower costs does not exist. While we say monopolies do not exist, oligopolies sure do. The fact that a handful of companies control an entire industry leads to lack of price competition. We are left with non-price competition and as a result the companies in control make obscene profits.

Because I believe that, it follows that a single payer (government) is the only long term solution to ever increasing health care costs. I'm sure that you are aware that those cost have far outstripped inflation for the past decades, and there is no reason to suspect that medical profiteers will slow down on their own. Supply/demand doesn't work here. If allowed to be implimented that way, millions would suffer without treatment and die. Most of us don't think that's an appropriate solution.

Interesting note-- President Clinton just gave a great speech (everyone owes it to themselves to listen to it). In it he said that health care has only increased at 4% for each of the last two years. If true, Obamacare must somehow have magically worked with respect to cost.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:37 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10582
Substitute2 wrote:
I agree that we need more providers so that demand doesn't exceed supply by such a huge margin. The problem is that we will not get that. As with almost all our industries, competition which brings lower costs does not exist. While we say monopolies do not exist, oligopolies sure do. The fact that a handful of companies control an entire industry leads to lack of price competition. We are left with non-price competition and as a result the companies in control make obscene profits.

What do you mean by "obscene profits"?

Second, health care is non-competitive mainly due to government regulation. A lot of the regulations make sense (state licensing, non-portable licensing state-to-state, continuing education requirements, testing before licensing), but most regarding insurance do NOT (barring interstate medical insurance sales, for example).

Government regulation has created the limitations on competition, Sub. The idea that more government regulation is the answer is just ... odd.

Also, in terms of profit, doctors make a good living. Is that the "profit" you want to cut? How about nurses - they are very well paid. Lower their wages?

No? You are referring to private insurance companies, I presume.

Private medical insurance is the best way to give consumers choice as to their medical care, at differing costs, different coverage, different deductibles. The "one size fits all" method of forced coverage that is at the heart of government medical insurance programs is not as efficient, or adjustable to market forces, technology changes, changes in patient demands, etc.

Substitute2 wrote:
Because I believe that, it follows that a single payer (government) is the only long term solution to ever increasing health care costs.

Medicare and Medicaid have significantly understated adminstrative and overhead costs, and when the figures are adjusted, Medicare has overhead of 6% to 8%, relatively close to the costs (slightly lower, however) of private insurance. This article is worth the read:

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resou ... cation.pdf

Further, the idea that a government-run program will provide a service more efficiently and cost-effectively than private industry is, I submit, answered by this picture, showing two nearly identical populations, one living under the principles of private industry and one under government-run programs:

Image

The history of asset distribution and the distribution of goods and services has shown over the past 250 years that government-run methods are less efficient, less responsive, less cost-effective, and less consumer friendly than private industry.

Health care is a service. It is an important service but basing your distribution decisions on the fact that the good or service is "important" and thereby ignoring history is not advisable.

Food is more important that medical care, I submit. Food is grown and marketed in the United States very much in a free market process. We have more food than we can consume and sell billions of dollars of food per year.

The market works.

Substitute2 wrote:
I'm sure that you are aware that those cost have far outstripped inflation for the past decades, and there is no reason to suspect that medical profiteers will slow down on their own. Supply/demand doesn't work here. If allowed to be implimented that way, millions would suffer without treatment and die. Most of us don't think that's an appropriate solution.

Your argument is in significant part a straw man approach (government-run or death). Once again, you appear to be unnerved at the fact that some in the medical profession make money.

So do the food industry, and the transporation industry, and the energy industry, and the housing industry. And these industries, like medicine, distribute products and services quickly, effectively and efficiently.

The idea that a government-run program will do away with waste or fraud or swindling or unfortunate circumstances affecting some consumers, etc. is just not realistic.

Yes, the market works. It works for all goods and services to determine what value consumers place on a good or service. Further, if a good or industry generates (as you describe it) "obscene profits," then others will enter that market to get some of that profit.

And you have used the unfounded, unsupported emotional argument that suggests you don't have facts to bolster your position, i.e., that without government-run health care, "[fill in startingly high but not ridiculously absurd number here] will die."

No, they won't. Catholic Hospitals have given away care for centuries. Free medical services are provided every day, in every city, in America.

Those who die due to serious and costly diseases and lack of medical insurance are best answered by greater protection and cost relief to charitable organizations. We had very little medical insurance in this country for our first 175 years, and people did not die in the streets due to lack of medical care.

I submit, therefore, that your claim is a myth. Do you have data showing that "x" number of citizens will die due to lack of medical care if insurance remains a private industry, as compared to a government-run program?

And have you considered that every nation which has implemented nationalized medical care has wound up saving costs by rationing, which directly kills patients?

Four out of five British doctors say patient care suffered in 2011 as a result of cuts to Great Britain's government-run healthcare system, according to a new poll from the left-leaning Guardian newspaper.

The polled doctors cited "hospital bed closures, pressure to give patients cheaper, slower-acting drugs, cuts to occupational health support, and reductions in community health services as examples of recent cost-cutting measures," according to The Guardian. The cuts to healthcare funding are part of conservative Prime Minister David Cameron's efforts to reel in the nation's deficit.


http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/pu ... -rationing

Substitute2 wrote:
Interesting note-- President Clinton just gave a great speech (everyone owes it to themselves to listen to it). In it he said that health care has only increased at 4% for each of the last two years. If true, Obamacare must somehow have magically worked with respect to cost.

I heard some on the radio, particularly the part where he explained how he implemented welfare reform ... though he seemed to leave out the part where he vetoed it twice, and was told by Dick Morris that if he vetoed it a third time, he would give the Republicans a campaign issue in 1996. (One general rule for politicians is that they rely substantially on the voters not remembering what happened, or what the politicians said previously.)

As to his point, I believe he is wrong. This site shows total health care spending in the United States from 1960 to 2009 (the year Obamacare was enacted).

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ ... 2s0134.pdf

The figures are from the census bureau and show that health care spending increased 3.9% from 2008 to 2009, below the 4% figure cited and in direct contradiction to his claim of lower increases the past two years (2010 and 2011) than the prior years.

Further, the increase from 2007 to 2008 was 4.7%. Clinton did not give tenths of a percent so I cannot check to see if his figures show a lower increase 2007-2008 than either 2010 or 2011.

Third, several publications noted that health care consumers used their care less in 2010 and 2011 due to loss of jobs, leading to loss of health insurance coverage which is most often provided by employers. In other words, Clinton is using Obama's economic failings that drove millions to the unemployment line and led to them not using health care they used to get from their employers and thus reduced spending on health care as evidence that Obama had "reduced the cost" of health care from 2009 through present.

Wow, a politician lied.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:01 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5529
Substitute2 wrote:
Supply/demand doesn't work here. If allowed to be implimented that way, millions would suffer without treatment and die. Most of us don't think that's an appropriate solution.


A few years back I asked a Doctor I was friendly with (who was MUCH smarter than I; in fact, he was one of the most brilliant people I've ever met in person) if supply/demand would work and he pretty much said the same thing: no.

I can't remember exactly why, but I took his word on it as he didn't strike me as the lying or non-complex thinking type.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10582
NSMaster56 wrote:
A few years back I asked a Doctor I was friendly with (who was MUCH smarter than I; in fact, he was one of the most brilliant people I've ever met in person) if supply/demand would work and he pretty much said the same thing: no.

I can't remember exactly why, but I took his word on it as he didn't strike me as the lying or non-complex thinking type.

Medical care cannot be a close to a perfect market due to "barriers to entry." Specifically, the time, cost, effort and licensing requirements insure that the supply of medical care is limited.

However, even imperfect markets are affected by supply and demand. That is one of the reasons why medical care is expensive - we are willing to pay a lot of money to avoid dying.

If medical care were a car, I seriously doubt that many would spend almost everything they have to obtain the car.

A lot are willing to do so for medical care because in some respects, the most expensive care (end of life treatment and emergency surgery) means the difference between life and death.

So medical care is going to be expensive, folks. The question is, "How do we best distribute medical care and at the best cost for the care?"

Private industry distributes medical care by profit. Government-run programs distribute care by directive.

Experience shows that distribution of a desired resource by government directive leads to misallocation, delayed response to consumer demand, sluggish response to the customer (who gives a shit if the customer is unhappy? What, I'm going to be fired?), costs that are not controlled well (no incentive to reduce costs by the government program - it's not like it's their money, and the funding comes from OPM), and rationing.

Finally, government-run medical care controls costs through edict. That creates an anti-market. Instead of the cost for medical care being determined by how much we believe the care is worth and how many are willing to provide the care, the cost is determined by a panel that pays little to no attention to market costs and price.

If the panel sets a price too low for providers to accept, then the supply shrinks and a shortage of care providers occurs. Eventually, the government will enter into agreements with health care providers to give the care, but at a "premium" (increased) cost. Thus, it winds up that not only is the health care rationed, and the wait for such care significant, but at the end of the day, the care is care actually costs much more than was "budgeted" by the government panel.

I base this on information from my brother, a doctor who owns and runs a clinic in Northern California. One of his partners is a pulmonologist who is the only doctor within 50 miles still seeing Medicare patients, but only because he worked out an agreement that he be paid market rate for the care. He was actually approached by Medicare, after the other pulmonologist in this general area told Medicare to take a hike.

He has business lined up out the door for obvious reasons. He gets paid far, far more than the Medicare "scheduled" reimbursement. So the market won out, even with government edict ...

With the wonderful result that patients have to wait for the care, and the government pays a lot of money for the care. Rationing and high cost ... only the government could bring about both.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:45 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10582
Dr. Bellar does a spectacularly better job of explaining the health care bill:



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:11 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
We could disagree forever but the issue is still in front of us. We continue to shrink in comparison to other countries in health care, but pay far more for this lousy system.
Again and again, I ask-- what is the alternative? The cost to all of us for this system is what is unsustainable not the medicare part of it. If anyone has a better solution, I would happily accept it. It is very easy to attack the decision makers, much more difficult to lead yourself. If you get rid of this law, what then?

The attack dog on your video says nothing about a solution or even point out flaws in the new law. What I heard is a rant against many individuals and not a solution.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10582
Substitute2 wrote:
We could disagree forever but the issue is still in front of us. We continue to shrink in comparison to other countries in health care, but pay far more for this lousy system.

I'm not sure why you deem the pre-2009 system "lousy," and I am curious as to how many other systems you have encountered for health care.

Substitute2 wrote:
Again and again, I ask-- what is the alternative? The cost to all of us for this system is what is unsustainable not the medicare part of it.

I spent a lot of time setting forth specific changes to the current system, but in brief summary:

  • Implement changes to medical insurance policies that require coverage for pre-existing illnesses and disease after a 15-day waiting period. (Most poliicies now, by the way, have a 6-month waiting period and it is a lie that such policies "never" cover pre-existing conditions.)
  • Make insurance conveyable/portable from employer to employer, to the extent an employer provides such coverage.
  • Make insurance more competitive by allowing intra-state sale of medical insurance.
  • For Medicare, implement a savings-account approach option that allows retirees to earn credits and a return if they don't burn through the insurance premium. Simply moving forward with the current system is a guaranteed path to bankruptcy.

P.S. An inconvenient fact is that Obamacare does not make Medicare solvent. Further, the idea that the Fed can cut $700 billion in reimbursements to the providers, and see no change in the number of providers, is beyond stupid. It is dangerously stupid.

What will happen is that physicians will tell Medicare to @#%* themselves. Patients literally have no doctor they can see. Medicare will then enter into "premium" payment agreements with providers, and the care cost 5 times as much per visit as budgeted.

The ONLY reason the annual expenditure does not wind up 5x as much as budgeted is that patients have to wait so long for care that the number of visits is artificially reduced (rationing), such that the actual expenditure is "only" 3x as much as was budgeted.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:16 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5529
Bucfan wrote:
  • Make insurance more competitive by allowing intra-state sale of medical insurance.


Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm pretty uneducated and maybe I'm just whistling dixie, but doesn't giving more power to states solve like 90% of America's problems?

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
NSMaster56 wrote:
Bucfan wrote:
  • Make insurance more competitive by allowing intra-state sale of medical insurance.


Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm pretty uneducated and maybe I'm just whistling dixie, but doesn't giving more power to states solve like 90% of America's problems?

Depends on what you identify as a "problem".

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:21 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5529
Willton wrote:
NSMaster56 wrote:
Bucfan wrote:
  • Make insurance more competitive by allowing intra-state sale of medical insurance.


Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm pretty uneducated and maybe I'm just whistling dixie, but doesn't giving more power to states solve like 90% of America's problems?

Depends on what you identify as a "problem".


'Conflicts'.

Social and economic hurdles/issues which divide the nation.

America's problem, no matter what the issue, seems to be trying to create a 'one size fits all' solution... pretty dumb if you ask me.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:14 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6215
As an educator, I can tell you, one size never fits all....JMHO... 8-) 8-) 8-)


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:01 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:18 am
Posts: 723
Location: The Hinterlands of Northwestern PA
It's a fine line. It's true that you can't impose the same cookie-cutter approach to governing Connecticut and governing Louisiana. So giving more power to the states to let them do as they see fit sounds like a great idea ... until you consider, for example, what would happen to minorities/gays/non-Christians in the South if we did that. A balance needs to be struck. And whatever conclusion you come to is sure to enrage someone.

_________________
Judge Landis
Chairman, UPPMB Pink Polo Shirt Brigade
President, Lacee Collins Fan Club


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:12 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5529
Judge Landis wrote:
It's a fine line. It's true that you can't impose the same cookie-cutter approach to governing Connecticut and governing Louisiana. So giving more power to the states to let them do as they see fit sounds like a great idea ... until you consider, for example, what would happen to minorities/gays/non-Christians in the South if we did that. A balance needs to be struck. And whatever conclusion you come to is sure to enrage someone.


I suppose I always thought of the system as (for the most part), 'the state can add to, but not take away from, federal law'.

So basically, for cheap example, the US could dictate that the legal drinking was 18 and if any state wanted to make it higher they could, but not lower. States could add to laws, but not take away from (as is [supposed to be] the case in military regulations).

Now, as I'm not a legal eagle, I wouldn't know how more complex laws would work then (gambling, wages, any number or criminal laws, etc.), but I always just assumed that the federal government's role was more mediator than 'my way or the highway' authoritarian.

Perhaps my memory of and/or public education concerning federal government was less than stellar, but I just thought that the federal government was supposed to maintain, not mandate.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:18 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Not a legel eagle either but some knowledge of constitution.
The very word federal means a sharing of power between state and national government. As you know, they first constitution was the Articles of Confederation. It had a very weak central government and almost all power was in state gov't. It didn't work because there was no way to keep all the colonies working together.
The founding fathers wrote a sharing of power constitution but in truth the national government has slowly taken more power and limited states ability to counter it. The 9th Amendment reserves all powers not listed for the states but the elastic clause has been interpreted to mean that anything necessary to enforce legel national laws was also a national gov't power.

The argument over who should have governing power in the US continues.

NB-- John C Calhoun and South Carolina tried nullification to cancel national law they didn't like just before the civil war. Points to the fact that where there is conflict, the national law must take precedance in order to preserve the union.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:24 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10582
Substitute2 wrote:
The founding fathers wrote a sharing of power constitution but in truth the national government has slowly taken more power and limited states ability to counter it. The 9th Amendment reserves all powers not listed for the states but the elastic clause has been interpreted to mean that anything necessary to enforce legel national laws was also a national gov't power.

The argument over who should have governing power in the US continues.

Your theory of a "battle" between the Federal government and states as to the power to be exercised by each may have been worthy of discussion 50 years ago.

With all due respect, Sub, the Federal government now has virtually unlimited authority to tax, spend and regulate every commercial activity. That is most definitely NOT what the founders intended when implementing the Constitution nor what they believed was in the best interests of the nation. For example:

Federalist #45:

On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members. The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp.

Federalist #14:

In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other subjects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity. Were it proposed by the plan of the convention to abolish the governments of the particular States, its adversaries would have some ground for their objection; though it would not be difficult to show that if they were abolished the general government would be compelled, by the principle of self-preservation, to reinstate them in their proper jurisdiction.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa14.htm

We had just finished a 9-year war with England, at a cost of thousands of lives and ten of millions of dollars, to extricate ourselves from a centralized government. The theory that we followed for more than 150 years was that a Federal government of very limited powers was far less likely to result in intrusion into personal affairs, commerce, and religion than were the state governments, mainly because citizens had the option of leaving a state that adopted punitive tax or social policies.

That effect is still in existence, even with a Federal government that is the 8000 lb. gorilla for legislation and taxation. California, New York, Illinois, Rhode Island, and Michigan have slower population growth than do Texas, Florida, Utah, and Alaska.

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's testitimony to Congress in 1964 regarding the Civil Rights Act, and the scope of Federal power under the commerce clause, made clear that the Federal government was supreme and that the concept of "state's rights" was quaint.

Kennedy testified that the commerce clause empowered Congress to regulate economic activity of tiny, isolated businesses that had no legitimate involvement with interstate commerce. (The Civil Rights Act could not be implemented pursuant to the 13th, 14th or 15th amendments. The 14th amendment, in particular, does not effect individual action. It provides in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The "state power" dispute is no longer. The Federal government now legislates and basically runs food, housing, education, student loans, home loans, and medical care. This power is as far removed from what Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson envisioned as can be imagined.

"So what?", you ask. This what:

Our government derives its authority from the consent of the public, based on the promises made in the Constitution. That is our "contract."

If the Federal government is free to ignore the contract and do whatever it wants, why the hell am I forced to honor the contract??


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:55 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
I don't disagee with the notion that the national government has taken over in almost all phases of power and states have been greatly diminished. To prevent 50 countries from being created, the consolidation of power is a natural evolution of our federal system. Don't see any viable option outside of dissolving our country.

One area that is especially offensive to me is "exectutive orders" from the President. It makes the executive branch have legislative powers that surely weren't intended in the constitution. When did anyone give them power to enforce or not enforce parts of laws they don't like? And why has the SC not dealt with that issue?

Here's another: The War powers Act was passed to limit the executive branch from conducting long wars without congress declaring them as wars. It, of course came after Vietnam (a police action) was never a declared war. So, why hasn't this law been before the SC for validation yet?

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits