Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: A rather large presumption


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A rather large presumption Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 6:06:47 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Why, exactly, is individual healthcare the responsibility of the U.S. government in the first place?

It's quite a presumption, for those on the left seeking to distract from the blistering, glaring, failure of the Obama administration on this law, to sneeringly ask, "well what is your solution," without ever establishing that this is the job of our government in the first place.

Shouldn't the question of whether we should be doing it at all be resolved, before we try to get into the nuts and bolts of doing it?


It's a valid question. In a country like ours, it's necessary to ask and re-ask the questions regarding what role government should play in the lives of individual citizens and for the nation as a whole. Our government has taken on many responsibilities that aren't specifically outlined in the Constitution, so it's reasonable to ask the question.

The problem we're facing now seems to be the result of conflicting "sacred principles" in the American political consciousness. There are those who extol the virtues of the free market and a privatized system with as little interference from the government as possible, but the problem with the healthcare system is that we don't really run it that way. This is because of our simultaneous principle that government exists to protect people from themselves, as (just as one example) a person can't purchase whatever medications or drugs one might need without a prescription, which requires a visit to the doctor. Everything has to be approved by a government agency, with some things being banned outright, while others labeled as "controlled substances."

Strictly speaking, I don't see how the government can take on responsibilities like that without taking on the general responsibility for people's health. You can't just put the cart before the horse like that. If you want free market medicine, then make it so, but do so consistently. That's all I would ask. If not, then the government will have to take some responsibility here, although there may be many ways of doing so without bankrupting the country. That's why people are asking for other solutions.

My solution would be price controls, but nobody seems to like that idea.

Another valid question that should be examined is: What are these healthcare products and services actually worth? Are we getting our money's worth? People might pose ancient riddles like "What is the value of a human life?" but in terms of dollars and cents and what they're actually providing, are we getting the best bang from our buck?


(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 7:02:49 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Why, exactly, is individual healthcare the responsibility of the U.S. government in the first place?
[snip]

Shouldn't the question of whether we should be doing it at all be resolved, before we try to get into the nuts and bolts of doing it?

It seems to me that this question has already been resolved by the only people whose opinions matter in this case.

This question was put to the American people by Obama in his presidential campaign, when he promised to introduce a better healthcare system as part of his election platform.

When the US people elected Obama, they answered the question convincingly and democratically.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 11/18/2013 7:07:41 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 7:08:32 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Why, exactly, is individual healthcare the responsibility of the U.S. government in the first place?
[snip]

Shouldn't the question of whether we should be doing it at all be resolved, before we try to get into the nuts and bolts of doing it?

It seems to me that this question has already been resolved.

This question was put to the American people by Obama in his presidential campaign, when he promised to introduce a better healthcare system as part of his election platform.

When the US people elected Obama, they answered the question convincingly and democratically.



That would be true if the only reason people voted for him was his promise. There is a lot more going on here than health care and a lot of reasons for voting someone in that has nothing to do with it. Personally I think he got a lot of votes for simply not being Bush. Hopefully the right will come up with better candidates next time, but I am not holding my breath.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 7:12:15 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
My solution would be price controls, but nobody seems to like that idea.


Where would you put the control, Zonie? Would you put it only on the "final" price the provider is allowed to charge, or would you put it a control on every level of service/product that goes into making that final price?

Purely as an example, if I make gold widgets that each contain a troy ounce of gold, when gold can't be bought for less than $1300/oz., what would happen if government came in and said I'm not allowed to charge more than $1000 per gold widget?

IMO, a price control assumes there is high profits in the system (which may or may not be the case). The only way a control will truly work well, is to place it on the most profitable input of the final price. If we can identify which input is most profitable, why isn't there competition for providing that input? Is there some legislation that is causing the failure, or is there legislation that could open the jam up (and, how do we want that legislation to act)?

quote:

Another valid question that should be examined is: What are these healthcare products and services actually worth? Are we getting our money's worth? People might pose ancient riddles like "What is the value of a human life?" but in terms of dollars and cents and what they're actually providing, are we getting the best bang from our buck?


It should be obvious that we aren't getting the best bang for our buck, as costs for individual procedures and services far surpass the costs for those same services and procedures abroad. I think it's safe to assume that we aren't getting the best bang for our buck. A better question would be "why aren't we?"

I honestly don't think we've ever truly found that out. And, until we do, we aren't likely to find a good solution.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 7:16:15 AM   
MariaB


Posts: 2969
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Another valid question that should be examined is: What are these healthcare products and services actually worth? Are we getting our money's worth? People might pose ancient riddles like "What is the value of a human life?" but in terms of dollars and cents and what they're actually providing, are we getting the best bang from our buck?



I don’t think the majority of American citizens are aware of just how expensive their medical care is compared to the rest of the world. Being in hospital costs more, because drugs cost more. Going to the doctors costs more because training and education costs more. All the red tape that involves insurance costs more, all the pen pushers and admin staff cost more and because there’s no restrictions on what pharmaceutical companies can charge, it costs more. Why is it so expensive? Because America has allowed it to be.

I live in a country with a 2 tier system which works very well, is relatively low cost, is simple to use and most importantly, doesn't put people in debt but then if you went out and did a survey on the streets of France and the streets of Britain and asked the question; 'What should every citizen of this country be entitled to'? a very high percentage are going to say, education and medical care.

In both these countries we pay national insurance contributions but only if we are employed or self employed. You don't pay NI if you are under 16 or still in full time education or have reached the national retirement age and your NI is paid for you if you are unemployed. People on low incomes will pay far less in NI contributions than those on high salaries but they are entitled to the same medical care under the NHS. What this means is, every working citizen of said country pays into the government pot towards a full health care system and every unemployed citizen of that country and who is claiming benefits, has those contributions paid for by either the government pot or voluntary contributions. This way, contributions are surprisingly low, so low in fact that we hardly notice it being deducted from our salaries.

My American friend came over hear only a few weeks ago. She fell and broke her leg in the airport (her fault) and we had to take her to casualty. She was examined by a doctor, x-rayed, put in a splint, given crutches and injectables for her flight home. She was given pain killers as well as admin writing her a letter saying she was safe to fly and all her notes to take back to her doctor were put in order an given to her before she left. She had no insurance, she had no European medical card but her entire bill came to 72 Euro ($97). Just out of interest, how much would all of that cost in the US?

_____________________________

My store is http://e-stimstore.com

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 7:41:14 AM   
MariaB


Posts: 2969
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Where would you put the control, Zonie? Would you put it only on the "final" price the provider is allowed to charge, or would you put it a control on every level of service/product that goes into making that final price?

Purely as an example, if I make gold widgets that each contain a troy ounce of gold, when gold can't be bought for less than $1300/oz., what would happen if government came in and said I'm not allowed to charge more than $1000 per gold widget?

IMO, a price control assumes there is high profits in the system (which may or may not be the case). The only way a control will truly work well, is to place it on the most profitable input of the final price. If we can identify which input is most profitable, why isn't there competition for providing that input? Is there some legislation that is causing the failure, or is there legislation that could open the jam up (and, how do we want that legislation to act)?

quote:

Another valid question that should be examined is: What are these healthcare products and services actually worth? Are we getting our money's worth? People might pose ancient riddles like "What is the value of a human life?" but in terms of dollars and cents and what they're actually providing, are we getting the best bang from our buck?


It should be obvious that we aren't getting the best bang for our buck, as costs for individual procedures and services far surpass the costs for those same services and procedures abroad. I think it's safe to assume that we aren't getting the best bang for our buck. A better question would be "why aren't we?"

I honestly don't think we've ever truly found that out. And, until we do, we aren't likely to find a good solution.



Its about monopolies, its about who has the patents on a drug. The drug company can essentially charge what they want and they do. Pricing structures from pharmaceutical companies bare no relation to the cost of the drug and that includes research and development. Its all about maximizing revenue and if the government don't put a cap on this, sick people will continue to pave those pharmaceutical companies in gold.
Now of course they are going to tell us that these high prices are necessary because of the high risks and costs before going into manufacture!! Are you aware that 84% of worldwide funding for drug discovery research comes from government and public sources?

http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/BMJ-Innova_ARTICLE_8-11-12.pdf





_____________________________

My store is http://e-stimstore.com

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 7:48:01 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		And that R&D is a writeoff?

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to MariaB)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 8:33:53 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB
Its about monopolies, its about who has the patents on a drug. The drug company can essentially charge what they want and they do.


Drug costs? That's why the individual costs of services and procedures are so high?

I'm going to go ahead and just disagree that's the case. I won't disagree that drug costs are high, but I will disagree that has that much effect on costs.

How would that increase the cost to see a private practice Dr.?

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MariaB)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 9:08:27 AM   
MariaB


Posts: 2969
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And that R&D is a writeoff?


Of course they expect to get it back! You can't run a business writing off your R&D investment. There's nothing wrong with profit, there's nothing wrong with charging what the market can bare.

Thing is though, America expects to pay huge amounts for medication but because the European market won't bare those same costs, the pharmaceutical companies sell that same drug to the European market for marginally less than the US and those pharmaceutical companies still make a profit otherwise they wouldn't be selling those drugs to Europe. Bottom line is, your present system allows it. There's nobody fighting your corner to keep costs affordable and the end user, who believes that because it really does cost all this, think private insurance is the answer. Win win for both the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies






_____________________________

My store is http://e-stimstore.com

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 9:19:32 AM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline 		FR.

At the end of the day, if my american friends want to pay more than twice what I pay for, for a healthcare system that by and large delivers identical outcomes, then... who am I to stop them.



_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to MariaB)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 9:21:56 AM   
MariaB


Posts: 2969
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB
Its about monopolies, its about who has the patents on a drug. The drug company can essentially charge what they want and they do.


Drug costs? That's why the individual costs of services and procedures are so high?

I'm going to go ahead and just disagree that's the case. I won't disagree that drug costs are high, but I will disagree that has that much effect on costs.

How would that increase the cost to see a private practice Dr.?


Because there aren't other options. Can you shop around and find GP's that charge less/more for a one off consultations? If every America GP expects x amount from every patient they see, then that's what you pay.

Believe it or not, we have a lot of doctors, consultants, specialists working in France and the UK. They earn very good salaries and many top those salaries up with private patients who use private insurance. The problem with private insurance, especially in the UK is, most people don't want it, think its an obscene amount of money (even though its still a lot less than the US) and only go onto the private schemes if its an employment benefit.

Nice to be in a position where if you don't pay for private insurance, you still get top notch treatment when you really need it and you don't go home knowing some crippling bill is going to arrive on your doorstep some time soon.




< Message edited by MariaB -- 11/18/2013 9:22:44 AM >

_____________________________

My store is http://e-stimstore.com

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 9:34:05 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB
Its about monopolies, its about who has the patents on a drug. The drug company can essentially charge what they want and they do.

Drug costs? That's why the individual costs of services and procedures are so high?
I'm going to go ahead and just disagree that's the case. I won't disagree that drug costs are high, but I will disagree that has that much effect on costs.
How would that increase the cost to see a private practice Dr.?

Because there aren't other options. Can you shop around and find GP's that charge less/more for a one off consultations? If every America GP expects x amount from every patient they see, then that's what you pay.
Believe it or not, we have a lot of doctors, consultants, specialists working in France and the UK. They earn very good salaries and many top those salaries up with private patients who use private insurance. The problem with private insurance, especially in the UK is, most people don't want it, think its an obscene amount of money (even though its still a lot less than the US) and only go onto the private schemes if its an employment benefit.
Nice to be in a position where if you don't pay for private insurance, you still get top notch treatment when you really need it and you don't go home knowing some crippling bill is going to arrive on your doorstep some time soon.


I have had quite an illuminating time on these boards learning about the NHS system.

But, if you're not claiming Dr.'s are making an obscene profit, what does it matter that they are charging $X?

It would be nice to see people shopping for pricing, but there is no incentive to do that because people, by and large, are not paying for the services directly.

I took my son to the Dr. recently, and got him a Rx. $35 out of pocket for both things. How much did either of those things actually cost? I have no fucking idea. Part of that is because all I had to pay was the co-pay, and the other part of that is that he is covered by my ex's insurance, so there is zero incentive to price shop, for me.

Let someone put money into a spending account, tax free, and spend it on qualified medical expenditures, and whatever is left over at the end of the year is paid to them (less applicable taxes), and you just might see more people paying attention to what the costs really are. Allow employers to contribute, also tax free, to those accounts and pass legislation requiring fee schedules be available. If someone wants to buy insurance, it can be a qualified medical expenditure, but, they buy it for themselves.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MariaB)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 10:25:20 AM   
evesgrden


Posts: 597
Joined: 6/9/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: evesgrden

I haven't asserted anything. I just gave consideration to those countries where they clearly believe that universal healthcare is not the country's responsibility.



Then your assertion, impliedly so, is that the US is. How you come to that as a federal governmental function I do not know. Clearly, had the intention been there for the federal government to be having such a role, the 10th amendment would hardly be what it is.



You're trying to turn this into a debate about whether healthcare should be a the federal government's responsiblity because of the constitution.

Actually, it became the government's responsibility when it was voted into law. But that's neither here nor there.

My point is that those who are against it have the same perspective as 3rd world countries, unlike all the developed democratic educated countries of the world.

I'm not about to get into a debate about constitutional law or the founding fathers. Just pointing out who concurs with you, and who doesn't.


_____________________________

What you permit, you promote.

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 10:27:03 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Well, the legislature thought it was constitutional, the president thought it was constitutional, and the SCOTUS said it was constitutional.   That sort of in our system at least, makes it constituional.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to evesgrden)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 11:42:05 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: evesgrden
You're trying to turn this into a debate about whether healthcare should be a the federal government's responsiblity because of the constitution.
Actually, it became the government's responsibility when it was voted into law. But that's neither here nor there.
My point is that those who are against it have the same perspective as 3rd world countries, unlike all the developed democratic educated countries of the world.
I'm not about to get into a debate about constitutional law or the founding fathers. Just pointing out who concurs with you, and who doesn't.


Um, this whole thread is about whether health care should be the government's responsibility, and some certainly do think it's not authorized by the US Constitution.

From the OP:
    quote:

    Why, exactly, is individual healthcare the responsibility of the U.S. government in the first place?

    It's quite a presumption, for those on the left seeking to distract from the blistering, glaring, failure of the Obama administration on this law, to sneeringly ask, "well what is your solution," without ever establishing that this is the job of our government in the first place.

    Shouldn't the question of whether we should be doing it at all be resolved, before we try to get into the nuts and bolts of doing it?

    Though it is widely ignored by liberals here, and our foreign participants can't wrap their heads around the concept at all, we are not subjects of the government to be cared for in this country. Government responsibilty for individual healthcare is not a given. Appeals to emotion don't make the cut, and attempts to demonize the very question only establish that those trying the tactic don't have an answer.


Just because it was voted into law doesn't make it Constitutionally authorized.

For instance, the Defense of Marriage Act was voted into law, but it has been decided that it isn't Constitutional.

The US Constitution, in the US, is supposed to matter. And, to many of us, it certainly does.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to evesgrden)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 11:51:19 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		You argued way past the sale on that one.  See my post just prior to yours which you didnt get to yet.

DOMA and Obamacare have been thru SCOTUS.  They got nowhere else to go, in our system.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 11:59:15 AM   
evesgrden


Posts: 597
Joined: 6/9/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, the legislature thought it was constitutional, the president thought it was constitutional, and the SCOTUS said it was constitutional.   That sort of in our system at least, makes it constituional.


Yes yes and yes.

_____________________________

What you permit, you promote.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 12:13:28 PM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
My solution would be price controls, but nobody seems to like that idea.


Where would you put the control, Zonie? Would you put it only on the "final" price the provider is allowed to charge, or would you put it a control on every level of service/product that goes into making that final price?


I'd have to see the figures and how much the actual markup is.

quote:


Purely as an example, if I make gold widgets that each contain a troy ounce of gold, when gold can't be bought for less than $1300/oz., what would happen if government came in and said I'm not allowed to charge more than $1000 per gold widget?


Then I suppose it wouldn't be feasible for you to go into the gold widget business, unless you found cheaper ways of obtaining your supply (such as setting up your own mine).

quote:


IMO, a price control assumes there is high profits in the system (which may or may not be the case). The only way a control will truly work well, is to place it on the most profitable input of the final price. If we can identify which input is most profitable, why isn't there competition for providing that input? Is there some legislation that is causing the failure, or is there legislation that could open the jam up (and, how do we want that legislation to act)?


These are all valid questions, although it would require "looking under the hood" at most healthcare providers and insurance companies. As for competition, I don't really see a great deal of competition in the healthcare field. People will generally go to whichever hospital or doctor is closest to where they live, and overall, I find very little attention is paid to the idea of competition in healthcare. Patients generally have to do a lot of legwork and make lots of phone calls to find out and compare the costs of different services between healthcare providers. They don't make it very easy for the average person to find out all this stuff.

In contrast, I can easily find comparisons and emphasis on competition when it comes to grocery stores, automobiles, computers, etc. If I need some kind of repair, I can usually get a free estimate as to how much it will cost before I agree to the work. Healthcare just doesn't operate that way, especially if you don't even know what medical services or products you'll actually need. It's like trying to navigate a Byzantine labyrinth. They don't make it very consumer-friendly, and it's not very conducive to any kind of competition. For a lot of Americans, their employer picks what insurance company to use.

If Americans truly want a free-market healthcare system (and I'm not sure that they do), then it should at least be structured and presented in such a way as to promote competition and fair pricing based on free market principles. Consumer choice is also important. If I'm on an insurance plan and they agree to pay X amount of dollars if I need to go to the doctor, it shouldn't matter to them whether I go "in network" or "out of network" as long as the dollar cost is the same either way. Hell, if I wanted to use my designated healthcare dollars to go to a faith healer, I should have that right.

So, if we really want free market principles and competition in the medical marketplace, then let's at least do it right - or not at all.

quote:


quote:

Another valid question that should be examined is: What are these healthcare products and services actually worth? Are we getting our money's worth? People might pose ancient riddles like "What is the value of a human life?" but in terms of dollars and cents and what they're actually providing, are we getting the best bang from our buck?


It should be obvious that we aren't getting the best bang for our buck, as costs for individual procedures and services far surpass the costs for those same services and procedures abroad. I think it's safe to assume that we aren't getting the best bang for our buck. A better question would be "why aren't we?"

I honestly don't think we've ever truly found that out. And, until we do, we aren't likely to find a good solution.


Again, we have to be able to look under the hood.

It seems to me that the central issue here is rising healthcare costs, but people on both sides of this issue seem to just accept it as a given. Nobody really seems to question how much it actually costs and whether it's worth it; the whole debate seems to revolve around who pays for it and how it should be organized. It's almost as if the healthcare industry is saying "Fuck you, pay me," and both parties are playing the "how-we-gonna-pay-for-it" dance. They don't even stop to consider that maybe, just maybe, they could respond to the healthcare industry by saying "Fuck you, this is how much you're going to get, and you're going to like it."



(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 12:54:43 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: evesgrden
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Well, the legislature thought it was constitutional, the president thought it was constitutional, and the SCOTUS said it was constitutional.   That sort of in our system at least, makes it constituional.

Yes yes and yes.


DOMA was passed by Congress and signed into law. Obviously, Congress and Presidents passing something isn't clear proof that something is Constitutional.

Two parts of Obamacare have been challenged. One was ruled Constitutional, under the taxing authority, while the other was ruled not Constitutional.

Considering Congress and the President passed the entire law, including the unConstitutional portion, obviously, it being passed isn't proof of Constitutionality.

List of Acts of Congress that weren't Constitutional in part, or in whole

There may yet be more cases making their way to the SCOTUS for Constitutionality rulings, and there may be enough of the law overturned that it can no longer stand.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to evesgrden)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: A rather large presumption - 11/18/2013 1:02:40 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		that will be a very rare day that happens.  I cant think of one law that was stricken down to nothing by piecemeal undoings.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A rather large presumption Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109