OBAMACARE MEGATHREAD OBAMA OBAMA CARE CARE Options

[Tex]

I was hearing today that amid the giddyness of Republicans being able to overhaul the health care bill comes the sobering reality that plans are already underway to comply. The expense of complying, then changing to something new, could be a nasty little surprise to some folks.

Also

What does it say about an industry that is against a law that would dump millions of new paying customers in their laps?

[Balta1701]

The government infringes on your freedom to buy and not to buy things all the time.

[Jenksismybitch]

The government infringes on your freedom to buy and not to buy things all the time.

Like? (ignoring criminal things)

This post has been edited by Jenksismybitch: Dec 15, 2010 -> 01:38 PM

[Balta1701]

Like? (ignoring criminal things)

Things that the federal government declares to be criminal purchases are a fully appropriate precedent.

[Jenksismybitch]

Things that the federal government declares to be criminal purchases are a fully appropriate precedent.

"Purchases" being the key. And that's the big difference - saying you can't purchase X versus you MUST purchase X.

[Balta1701]

"Purchases" being the key. And that's the big difference - saying you can't purchase X versus you MUST purchase X.

Let me ask this...where in the constitution do we get the concept that the commerce clause's power ends at the point where it requires purchase of a product? You've granted that the Congress has a right to ban products, which is something not explicitly given by the constitution. The only way this judge was able to write his decision was to basically throw out the necessary and proper clause, such that he could say that Congress didn't have the authority to come up with laws regulating interstate commerce that aren't specifically allowed by the constitution.

The judge himself couldn't make the argument that you're trying to make if he admitted that the Congress had a right to make laws that it deems necessary to regulating interstate commerce. If Congress has the authority to write laws necessary and proper to the regulation of interstate commerce, then Congress is fully within its rights to require purchase of a particular product.

[Jenksismybitch]

Let me ask this...where in the constitution do we get the concept that the commerce clause's power ends at the point where it requires purchase of a product? You've granted that the Congress has a right to ban products, which is something not explicitly given by the constitution. The only way this judge was able to write his decision was to basically throw out the necessary and proper clause, such that he could say that Congress didn't have the authority to come up with laws regulating interstate commerce that aren't specifically allowed by the constitution.

The judge himself couldn't make the argument that you're trying to make if he admitted that the Congress had a right to make laws that it deems necessary to regulating interstate commerce. If Congress has the authority to write laws necessary and proper to the regulation of interstate commerce, then Congress is fully within its rights to require purchase of a particular product.

Because the entire basis for Congress' power under the clause is regulating interstate commerce! Banning products is regulating items that would effect interstate commerce. Sitting on your ass at home not buying health insurance doesn't effect interstate commerce, thus there's no basis for Congress to regulate it.

You're completely ignoring the gigantic distinction he's making - interstate commerce requires activity. Here there is none. Thus Congress has no authority to regulate inactivity that doesn't effect interstate commerce.