Why is Health Care 'Reform' a Federal Issue?

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Why exactly is health care reform a federal issue?

Why isn't this left up to the states? If your state wants single payer (like Oregon) than have single payer. If your state wants a government option (like Tennessee) than have a government option.

It seems like this is one of those issues the founding fathers meant to leave to the states per states rights.

I really don't get how the federal government has a player in this except for the consolidation of power at the federal level and the ability to government more tax revenues for the federal government.

the founding fathers meant for blacks people to be slaves a women not to vote, who gives a shit what they intended? The federal government can do a better job of this than the states can.

 

[ElFenix]

all i know is that the US government does not have the power to regulate generally for health and welfare, and yet title 42, public health and welfare, takes up more shelf space than anything but title 28, the judiciary.



i think i'd rather see the states compete with different ways of accomplishing things and find out what works best. if california wants to adopt single payer california should do so. if it works people and industry will start moving back there.

 

[ZeGermans]

Because "states rights" is only a flag brought up when people are angry that the federal government wants them to stop treating minorities as animals.

 

[piasabird]

The President made it a federal issue.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The President made it a federal issue.

And can you point out to me where in the constitution he is authorized to do such a thing?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: dammitgibs

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Because the health care industry operates across state lines, making it an interstate commerce issue. This makes it within Congress' powers to regulate.

I'm pretty sure Congress' powers are outlined by the constitution, not a private company, but I could be wrong.

Your post makes 0 sense.

Work on that and get back to us.

The same can be said for yours:

The government as a whole can negotiate the best pricing scheduls, ensure standards of care.

That is not a viable reason for violating state rights. Now, I happen to agree with eskimospy, whose reasoning is correct, but yours made as much sense as dammitgibs.

No, his literally made no sense.

You may disagree with the action I mention, but it is a clear action.

Also, there is nothing that constitutionally prevents a nation from acting as a collective to provide and negotiate a health care system. In fact, that is the purpose of congress, to provide representatives of each state's populace to legislate joint issues.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Also, there is nothing that constitutionally prevents a nation from acting as a collective to provide and negotiate a health care system. In fact, that is the purpose of congress, to provide representatives of each state's populace to legislate joint issues.

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

So, if you as an individual wants to organize everyone without health coverage into a (gasp) co-op and use leverage volume purchasing power such as a large company, nothing is stopping you from doing that (except for some possible state regulations)

But we can't do that because the big bad evil republicans purposed that as an alternative option which......Wait, there are no alternatives being put out there by the GOP....I forgot...I am sorry.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: jbourne77
The same can be said for yours:

The government as a whole can negotiate the best pricing scheduls, ensure standards of care.

That is not a viable reason for violating state rights. Now, I happen to agree with eskimospy, whose reasoning is correct, but yours made as much sense as dammitgibs.

No, his literally made no sense.

You may disagree with the action I mention, but it is a clear action.

Also, there is nothing that constitutionally prevents a nation from acting as a collective to provide and negotiate a health care system. In fact, that is the purpose of congress, to provide representatives of each state's populace to legislate joint issues.

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Your statement by itself is certainly correct (the larger the group, the better the discount), but there is no correlation between said statement and the federal government having the authority you imply.

Non sequitur.

The Constitution does not say "state rights will remain as such unless the federal government can get a really good discount."

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
The Constitution does not say "state rights will remain as such unless the federal government can get a really good discount."

The question of states rights simply does not apply to this conversation. The Constitution explicitly gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: jbourne77
The Constitution does not say "state rights will remain as such unless the federal government can get a really good discount."

The question of states rights simply does not apply to this conversation. The Constitution explicitly gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce.

REGULATE interstate commerce is different than a government option.

No one is disputing the ability of the federal government to REGULATE. My question is what provision in the constitution authorizes the federal government to implement a public option.

An example of REGULATION would be this "health exchange" which I do support.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: jbourne77
The Constitution does not say "state rights will remain as such unless the federal government can get a really good discount."

The question of states rights simply does not apply to this conversation. The Constitution explicitly gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce.

Which I understand and agree with:

Now, I happen to agree with eskimospy, whose reasoning is correct

I support eskimospy's explanation... but that's not what TruePaige posted:

The government as a whole can negotiate the best pricing scheduls, ensure standards of care.

The implication being that, because federal control generates a desirable outcome, it therefore has the right to assume control. By itself, the statement is correct... but it is not a basis for the conclusion.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Why exactly is health care reform a federal issue?

Why isn't this left up to the states? If your state wants single payer (like Oregon) than have single payer. If your state wants a government option (like Tennessee) than have a government option.

It seems like this is one of those issues the founding fathers meant to leave to the states per states rights.

I really don't get how the federal government has a player in this except for the consolidation of power at the federal level and the ability to government more tax revenues for the federal government.

I understand (and am even somewhat sympathetic to) your strict constructionist view here, but there's no question that in this day and age, a very broad reading of the Commerce Clause is the law of the land. If any were to take a challenge of the Feds' authority on this issue to the Supreme Court, it'd be a certain loss. That horse got out of the barn decades ago.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Patranus
REGULATE interstate commerce is different than a government option.

No one is disputing the ability of the federal government to REGULATE. My question is what provision in the constitution authorizes the federal government to implement a public option.

An example of REGULATION would be this "health exchange" which I do support.

You are grasping at an illusory semantic straw. Specifically, you misunderstand the meaning of the word "regulate", and are attempting to impart a restrictive scope to it that the word simply does not have.

1 a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>
2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>
3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>

The Constitution give Congress the power to "bring under the control of law or constituted authority" any facet of interstate commerce in any way they see fit, up to and through instituting a government option all the to instituting a government monopoly.

Specifically, there is NO Constitutional prohibition or restriction to either a government health care option or UHC.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I support eskimospy's explanation... but that's not what TruePaige posted:

The government as a whole can negotiate the best pricing scheduls, ensure standards of care.

The implication being that, because federal control generates a desirable outcome, it therefore has the right to assume control. By itself, the statement is correct... but it is not a basis for the conclusion.

The implication that you impute to TruePaige's words is simply not there.

He is not using his contention that the gov't. can best control pricing and ensure care standards as a basis for the legal/constitutional legitimacy of federal gov't. control/intervention, but merely as two signal benefits to such an action, as he sees it.

I tend to agree.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Perk, there is what makes it permissable, but the reason it has become a fed issue isn't a Constitutional one.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Perk, there is what makes it permissable, but the reason it has become a fed issue isn't a Constitutional one.

Posters here were contending that the Constitution barred the federal gov't. from regulating health care.

I was merely pointing out that's not the case.

Other than that, Haya, I don't understand what point you are making to me.

What statement of mine are you correcting?

 

[PokerGuy]

eskimospy is right that it's under the commerce clause. The commerce clause has been made so large and all encompassing that --- regardless of the limitations set out in the constitution --- the federal government can regulate anything.

If you want to sell lemonade on your street corner, the federal government can regulate it as "interstate commerce", which is completely absurd.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
eskimospy is right that it's under the commerce clause. The commerce clause has been made so large and all encompassing that --- regardless of the limitations set out in the constitution --- the federal government can regulate anything.

If you want to sell lemonade on your street corner, the federal government can regulate it as "interstate commerce", which is completely absurd.

Yes

Again regulating health care is different than providing a public option.

Deregulation such as the "public health exchange" is well within the power of the federal government and is something I very much support.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Yes

Again regulating health care is different than providing a public option.

No.

It is not.

Please read my reply to you several posts above and STOP repeating your material misapprehension. There is no wiggle room for you. You are simply wrong.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
eskimospy is right that it's under the commerce clause. The commerce clause has been made so large and all encompassing that --- regardless of the limitations set out in the constitution --- the federal government can regulate anything.

If you want to sell lemonade on your street corner, the federal government can regulate it as "interstate commerce", which is completely absurd.

Yes

Again regulating health care is different than providing a public option.

Deregulation such as the "public health exchange" is well within the power of the federal government and is something I very much support.

Can you see other posters responses to your questions, or do you just willfully ignore them?

 

[sandorski]

Someone should have asked McCain when he promoted HealthCare Reform a year ago. Seems to me that it has been a Federal Issue for a very long time.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I support eskimospy's explanation... but that's not what TruePaige posted:

The government as a whole can negotiate the best pricing scheduls, ensure standards of care.

The implication being that, because federal control generates a desirable outcome, it therefore has the right to assume control. By itself, the statement is correct... but it is not a basis for the conclusion.

The implication that you impute to TruePaige's words is simply not there.

He is not using his contention that the gov't. can best control pricing and ensure care standards as a basis for the legal/constitutional legitimacy of federal gov't. control/intervention, but merely as two signal benefits to such an action, as he sees it.

I tend to agree.

Thank you Perknose for understanding the point behind my statement.

Like you and Eskimo have outlined, the government is in no way prohibited from involving itself in the healthcare industry, and I was merely pointing out logical benefits.

For a group of people who are so intent to see actual savings I don't know why some of the posters here would want to make things overly complicated and more expensive with differing standards of care and funding.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I support eskimospy's explanation... but that's not what TruePaige posted:

The government as a whole can negotiate the best pricing scheduls, ensure standards of care.

The implication being that, because federal control generates a desirable outcome, it therefore has the right to assume control. By itself, the statement is correct... but it is not a basis for the conclusion.

The implication that you impute to TruePaige's words is simply not there.

He is not using his contention that the gov't. can best control pricing and ensure care standards as a basis for the legal/constitutional legitimacy of federal gov't. control/intervention, but merely as two signal benefits to such an action, as he sees it.

I tend to agree.

Thank you Perknose for understanding the point behind my statement.

Like you and Eskimo have outlined, the government is in no way prohibited from involving itself in the healthcare industry, and I was merely pointing out logical benefits.

For a group of people who are so intent to see actual savings I don't know why some of the posters here would want to make things overly complicated and more expensive with differing standards of care and funding.

The context of your statement was "why is health care reform a Federal issue." Your reasoning? Because it was cost effective. Cost effective or not, that's not why it's a Federal issue. It's a Federal issue because, Constitutionally, it must be.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I support eskimospy's explanation... but that's not what TruePaige posted:

The government as a whole can negotiate the best pricing scheduls, ensure standards of care.

The implication being that, because federal control generates a desirable outcome, it therefore has the right to assume control. By itself, the statement is correct... but it is not a basis for the conclusion.

The implication that you impute to TruePaige's words is simply not there.

He is not using his contention that the gov't. can best control pricing and ensure care standards as a basis for the legal/constitutional legitimacy of federal gov't. control/intervention, but merely as two signal benefits to such an action, as he sees it.

I tend to agree.

Thank you Perknose for understanding the point behind my statement.

Like you and Eskimo have outlined, the government is in no way prohibited from involving itself in the healthcare industry, and I was merely pointing out logical benefits.

For a group of people who are so intent to see actual savings I don't know why some of the posters here would want to make things overly complicated and more expensive with differing standards of care and funding.

The context of your statement was "why is health care reform a Federal issue." Your reasoning? Because it was cost effective. Cost effective or not, that's not why it's a Federal issue. It's a Federal issue because, Constitutionally, it must be.

If you read the thread in order you will see the legal reasoning presented before I posted. Why would I need to reiterate it?

Also, I said to ensure standards of care are presented equally to all citizens.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I support eskimospy's explanation... but that's not what TruePaige posted:

The government as a whole can negotiate the best pricing scheduls, ensure standards of care.

The implication being that, because federal control generates a desirable outcome, it therefore has the right to assume control. By itself, the statement is correct... but it is not a basis for the conclusion.

The implication that you impute to TruePaige's words is simply not there.

He is not using his contention that the gov't. can best control pricing and ensure care standards as a basis for the legal/constitutional legitimacy of federal gov't. control/intervention, but merely as two signal benefits to such an action, as he sees it.

I tend to agree.

Thank you Perknose for understanding the point behind my statement.

Like you and Eskimo have outlined, the government is in no way prohibited from involving itself in the healthcare industry, and I was merely pointing out logical benefits.

For a group of people who are so intent to see actual savings I don't know why some of the posters here would want to make things overly complicated and more expensive with differing standards of care and funding.

The context of your statement was "why is health care reform a Federal issue." Your reasoning? Because it was cost effective. Cost effective or not, that's not why it's a Federal issue. It's a Federal issue because, Constitutionally, it must be.

You have a tendency to read into something what you want it to say so you can make your argument easier to defend. LOL, now your going to tell the person who posted the comment what "his" context was..... because you know more about what he meant then he does.

:laugh: