Here's the decision, linked from
Politico. How does the judge — George Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan — deal with the key problem, that Congress is trying to regulate persons who are not engaging in any economic activity? This is the key passage:
The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings, who do not oppose medical services on religious grounds, they cannot opt out of this market.
That is, everyone is already in the market simply by virtue of having a body which might require medical care.
As inseparable and integral members of the health care services market, plaintiffs have made a choice regarding the method of payment for the services they expect to receive. The government makes the apropos analogy of paying by credit card rather than by check. How participants in the health care services market pay for such services has a documented impact on interstate commerce.
So, if you are planning to pay out of pocket for your own medical expenses if and when they arise, you have, through that decision, done something that affected the health care market.
Obviously, this market reality forms the rational basis for Congressional action designed to reduce the number of uninsureds.
The Supreme Court has consistently rejected claims that individuals who choose not to engage in commerce thereby place themselves beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause. See, e.g., Raich, 545 U.S. at 30 (rejecting the argument that plaintiffs’ home-grown marijuana was “entirely separated from the market”); Wickard, 317 U.S. at 127, 128 (home-grown wheat “competes with wheat in commerce” and “may forestall resort to the market”); Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) (Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate decisions not to engage in transactions with persons with whom plaintiff did not wish to deal).
पोस्ट्स
१७१ टिप्पण्या:
The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings, who do not oppose medical services on religious grounds, they cannot opt out of this market
If you deleted the bolded section this would ALMOST make sense.
As it is, it reads as "the only way it is possible to choose not to use medical services is if you have a religious objection to using medical services".
So what about atheists who refuse to go to the doctor for secular reasons? Is the judge saying that no such people exist, or is he saying that these people haven't really refused to use medical services even though they've refused to use medical services?
I thought that the Feds planned to levy a tax on everyone for breathing out CO2. And they still do in the lame duck session. But this commerce clause ruling does that one better. Even holding your breath will not exempt any Natural Born earth dwellers from what ever tax Congress imposes. The tea party was right and was not half angry enough at the slimey Congress weasels who did this for payoffs in the form of corrupt earmark kickbacks. When is the next election?
The federal courts have become the abused bitch of our corrupt Congress and this bought off mother fucker proves it.
Hear this, judge. I. Will. Not. Be. Forced. To. Buy. Insurance.
I will not be forced by my elected officials to purchase products from their fucking campaign donors.
That way is tyranny.
They took this crap case to Detroit ... fucking crumbling Detroit ... where they could find this Democrat fucking hack of a corrupt court.
That shows what they think of their fucking law.
I. Will. Not. Fucking. Submit.
You fuckers have crossed a line from which you had better fucking retreat.
If I say I worship the Constitution, can I get a religious exemption?
Is there any rational limit to what can be justified under the Commerce Clause?
So, if you are planning to pay out of pocket for your own medical expenses if and when they arise, you have, through that decision, done something that affected the health care market.
This is why high deductable health insurance plans must become unavailable-they affect the healthcare market by making things more efficient.
Efficiency is bad.
It's time to amend the Constitution to repeal Article 1, Section 8 and just eliminate the fucking Congress entirely.
And thus advances the revolution one step closer to actual violence.
I. am. not. joking.
Yes, we can opt out of the US healthcare services market by getting our health care in Mexico or Canada. Or just suffer and die as Jesus did.
I imagine that this judge would grant the Feds the right to force us to carry sex insurance, since we "can't opt out of this market." Huh?
"If I say I worship the Constitution, can I get a religious exemption?"
No, but if you stroke Kathleen Sebelius' pussy just right, she'll grant you an insurance waiver (see Ronald McDonald vs. Barack Obama, who blinked).
See, we're no longer a nation of laws. We're a nation of corporations granted exceptions from the laws as long as you're donating to the right fucking political party.
If you're a Republican corporation, they investigate you. If you're a Democrat corporation, you get an exemption from the health care laws.
That's the country Barack Obama is creating for you. Are you going to fucking sit there and let him do it?
We either strip these dumb mother fuckers of all political power in November, or we have surrendered our nation to the most corrupt group of people since Adolph Hitler and the Nazi party.
These people are evil and we need to cleanse our lands of them.
(home-grown wheat “competes with wheat in commerce” and “may forestall resort to the market”
So by this bizzaro world of reasoning we are not allowed to grow our own tomatoes or basil because it means that we might not go to the grocery store to buy the tasteless pulp they sell there.
We are not to be allowed to sew our own clothes.
Bake our own bread.
At what point are we just going to kill these fuckers.
Soon I hope.
So, we're slaves in his district.
Freedom no longer has any meaning.
Our birth right is dying.
If we don't fix this, our experiment in freedom will have ended.
So this douchenozzle is discriminating against us nonbelievers, not giving us a way out? Gawd, he's just asking to be overturned. I have insurance, and have come to a time when I need it (and GEE! They didn't drop me as soon as I got sick!) but I'd be tempted to drop it, just to prove the point that I won't be compelled. Don't worry, I won't, until they decide the Health Care Deform makes it necessary, but it's a government job, so...
Oh, and the importance of Congress is about to be proven, despair not. just wait a month or so.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
And the bigger problem is this: Even if we want an exemption, that would mean we get NO insurance at all.
All of us will get the exploded pricing and imploded service whether we're exempted or not.
And the doctors will all be slaves.
To make more doctors, the government will lower the standards.
Socialism is a vicious circle.
I think the weed and Wickard cases are completely inapposite; the only way they analogize is in a case where someone was providing one's own medical services. To opt out of buying/consuming a service altogether is substantially different than to substitute one's own services for those on the market, the latter being fairly clear market participation.
And the bigger problem is this: Even if we want an exemption, that would mean we get NO insurance at all.
On the other hand. (Hypothetically)If I refuse to purchase insurance and get sent to jail will I get the government provided health care that inmates get now? My husband promised to buy some cookies and send them to me, since according the commerce clause we can't make our own because it would affect commerce.
That would be cool.
Jesus fucking Christ is this topic so hard that peopole cannot grasp it?
If your government can force you to purchase health insurance, then why can they not force you to purchase burial insurance?
Are you not alive?
Will you not die?
And if they can force you to purchase burial insurance, can they not force you to purchase life insurance?
Are you not alive? If you died today, would you not die owing corporations? Shouldn't you have to pay them if you die?
If we can be forced to purchase health insurance from the very same companies who are funding Democrat Party campaigns, then why can we not be forced to purchase food from Democrat Party food stores?
We will soon be forced to purchase cars from Democrat Party car companies.
We will soon be forced to finance our children's college education's from only Democrat-donating finance companies.
Your country is under seige, my fellow Americans.
They're trying to fucking steal it.
Are you going to let these mother fuckers get away with it?
I always thought Wickard was wrongly decided. It blew me away when I read about it in the US Constitution course I took for my teacher cert. The logical conclusion of Wickard is just as DBQ said, we're not allowed to do anything for ourselves because whatever we do disturbs the markets. It's complete crap.
That said, Wickard does not apply IMO. The defendant in Wickard was actually growing wheat, actually doing something. In the case of the health care legislation, we're talking about people who don't want to buy insurance and would rather cover their medical costs on their own.
What a terrifying decision. Does this judge not realize that his logic applies to other essentials? If merely living causes me to participate in the health care market, what about the food market? Or the clothes market (except for those who are nudists due on religious grounds, of course)?
This is ridiculous. Even Breyer wouldn't write something this stupid.
Obama said the next two years will be hand to hand combat if Republicans take the House. It may come to that even if they don't.
Perfesser, what do judges think the Tenth Amendment is there for, if it doesn't prohibit nonsense like this?
"we're talking about people who don't want to buy insurance and would rather cover their medical costs on their own."
And who are not given any fucking choice in the matter.
I was in an automobile accident recently, and a funny thing happened. The police officer called an ambulance and had me forcibly placed into it against my wishes.
"I could get sued if I let you leave the scene and then you die," he said.
I was forcibly placed into an ambulance against my will and forced to pay $450 for transpiration to a hospital I neither wanted, nor needed.
Then, when I looked into it further, I found out that a cousin of the mayor of my town owns the ambulance company and donates heavily to the mayor's election campaigns.
My fellow Americans, the Democrat Party is fucking stealing your country.
You can sit there and let them, or you can punch them back twice as hard.
FIGHT!
If we don't fix this, our experiment in freedom will have ended.
Yeah. I try not to be dramatic about things, but it's becoming harder...
And where else can we go? Antarctica? The moon? Goldilocks?
"... what do judges think the Tenth Amendment is there for ..."
This judge is corrupt.
He is not basing his decision on the principles of your founding fathers. You cannot look to them to be impartial arbiters.
They are in league with their confederates in the Congress to subvert both the will of the American people and the Constitution that grants them their powers.
New "Hussein" Ham
Such silly outrage comes out of your head. You have no problem with insurance companies fucking you day in and day out but when the government tries to fix this you scream. Get real. And BTW I am pretty sure you have insurance. Am I right? Why wouldn't you?
There is some kind of analogy between mandatory healthcare and the fire case this week where the homeowner did not pay his fee so the fire dept let his home burn.
I can't quite grasp the analogy but could you argue we should have the freedom to be uninsured and medical providers should have the freedom to refuse us medical care?
and medical providers should have the freedom to refuse us medical care?
Hmmm.
This makes me wonder. Under this judge's reasoning, doesn't the act of performing a surgery or a test (thereby costing the insurance company something) also affect the health care market?
Could the very decision to perform surgery or not be mandated by the government and protected by the commerce clause?
"... but when the government tries to fix this you scream."
Matt, surely they pay you to produce better spin than this?
How does the Democrats forcing Americans to purchase insurance from the very same companies funding their re-election campaigns constitue "fixing" things.
If by "fix" you mean that the "fix is in ... then I agree with you.
The Democrat Party is corrupt. They are trying to force Americans to purchase products from the very same insurance companies that are donating to their re-election campaigns. It's extremely transparent what they are doing.
Forcing people to buy shit is wrong, dude.
Everyone knows that.
And if you insist on enslaving me, then I'm going to fucking fight you to the death.
And when it starts, nothing about your world will ever be the same. Nothing you cherish will continue to exist. You will lose even if I lose.
Especially if I lose.
What about the decision to spend a lot of an insurance company's resources on one patient (perhaps someone near death), when it could be used by a lot of patients on smaller expenses?
Obviously, this market reality forms the rational basis for Congressional action designed to reduce the number of uninsureds.
How can this statement be said with a straight face when the vehicle to reduce the uninsured ensnared everyone else? It's like fishing with dynamite.
Ann, you also said this, "That is, everyone is already in the market simply by virtue of having a body which might require medical care."
This is legal justification? So by virtue that I have a body that 'may' require medical care, I am now therefore subject to this legislation without say so and not be allowed an opt out to go elsewhere?
Tony --
house != person
Tony
I'm not sure that is an apt analogy because doctors will never deny care to someone who comes into a hospital if they don't have insurance.
The case of the fire was one in which the [inept] fire department decided to let the fire burn because the guy had not paid a fee. Talk about tyranny. If a regular government run fire department had done this because the guy had not paid his taxes the right wing would have [rightly] flipped a lid. But since it is a private fire department safety and common sense take a back seat.
Anyway, they should have put the fire out and then [maybe] charged him the cost of the fire. This is similar to what the emergency room does to people who do not have insurance.
Matt said...
New "Hussein" Ham
Such silly outrage comes out of your head. You have no problem with insurance companies fucking you day in and day out but when the government tries to fix this you scream. Get real. And BTW I am pretty sure you have insurance. Am I right? Why wouldn't you?
Explain to me, in whatever language you use, what the government is fixing again? Have you even read the law? I have, twice!!! and it is nothing more than a large tax bill that wrests control of my medical decisions from me, a sovereign citizen of the United States of America and places those decisions into the lap of a nameless, faceless bureaucrat, HHS, FDA, and a number of other offices within these departments with the IRS being their enforcement arm. Get a fucking clue, and you have the nerve to whine about someone elses insurance fucking them? Fuck you.
Matt:
My point is freedom. If we can go without insurance, let doctors refuse service.
If we can go without fire insurance, doesn't the community suffer when my home burns down and I don't have the resources to rebuild?
New "Hussein" Ham
What are you talking about? The insurance companies have been fighting this health care bill tooth and nail. Are you saying ALL insurance companies are giving MORE to the Democrats this election cycle? If so show me the figures.
And note you are 'forced' to pay [i.e. buy] stuff all the time from local governments. You pay for the highway, the police, the fire dept, the schools, the military. You pay income tax that goes to all kinds of things you probably hate. You pay social security and medicare. You are forced to buy car insurance. You are forced to pay a car fee each year. And so now you are being 'forced' to buy insurance which I am pretty sure you already have. So what's the problem? Or are you just upset by the principle of the thing?
But don't pretend like this is the first time the government is making you shell out money with a penalty if you don't.
Matt said...
But since it is a private fire department safety and common sense take a back seat.
That's a bullshit strawman and you know it. Firefighters are obligated to put out fires, private company or not. The fact that this man didn't pay the fee and yet firefighters willfully neglected to put out the fire at his home resulting in not only the lose of the home, but his 3 dogs, and his cat, should be criminally negligent. What if a person was in that house and the fire department had every ample opportunity to save them and yet stood by and didn't. It isn't the fact that this guy didn't pay his fee, but the fact that these firefighters stood by and watched it, no, let it happen.
Someone elses fire caused this man to lose his home to it too. Was that his fault too? Fuck you.
Methadras
As it stands now and has stood for years the insurance companies are a nameless faceless entity deciding if you can or cannot be covered due to pre-exisitng conditions. I have friends who cannot get insurance because of an ulcer. Think about that.
The WHOLE idea of insurance companies is to MAKE money. Therefore the MORE people they can deny coverage to the less they have to pay for someone's illness.
THAT is tyranny my friend. The government is trying to stop that. If you think this is tyranny then I guess you think ALL taxes are tyranny. And if you do then maybe you aren't thinking much.
This is similar to what the emergency room does to people who do not have insurance.
Except the ER bills the uninsured patient, who doesn't pay, so the rest of us pay higher fees.
Matt said...
But don't pretend like this is the first time the government is making you shell out money with a penalty if you don't.
No one is pretended, dumbfuck. It's the principal that a singular individual can uphold the dictates of a legislative body against the peoples wishes. There are protestations against involuntary expenditures like auto insurance, but driving is a privilege not a right, therefore I can avoid such insurance by not driving. My medical care has now been deemed a right and this judges decision now compels me, UNDER DURESS, to buy insurance at the point of penalty, in the form of a fine or imprisonment. One does not correlate to other moron. Fuck you.
Isn't the appropriate analogy to the financial services industry?
Notice the judge starts out talking about plaintiffs not opting out of the "health care services market."
But the market at issue is the health insurance market.
Insurance is not a "method of payment," as the judge and the government argue, it's financial services product that is a method of risk management.
As inseparable and integral members of the health care services market, plaintiffs have made a choice regarding the method of payment for the services they expect to receive. The government makes the apropos analogy of paying by credit card rather than by check. How participants in the health care services market pay for such services has a documented impact on interstate commerce. So, if you are planning to pay out of pocket for your own medical expenses if and when they arise, you have, through that decision, done something that affected the health care market.
Under the logic of this ruling, Congress could compel you to invest your money with a private investment firm, because if left to your own choice, "through that decision, [you would have] done something that affected the financial products market."
Methadras
Re The Fire Dept in TN
I think we agree on this. The fire dept is criminally negligent.
Tony
Freedom to die? Sure. But no one is really free except maybe someone living on an island or in the wilderness in the arctic circle.
I suppose every district judge has the right to select what he or she wants from the Commerce Clause Cafeteria.
And if the judge's choice manages to stay down, I nominate Prof. Reynolds to oversee a new and improved Uniform Commercial Code.
Tonight's Special: Can O' Worms
Except the ER bills the uninsured patient, who doesn't pay
"Uninsured" and "bankrupt" are not synonyms.
C'mon, Professor. We don't claim to be your equals in constitutional scholarship. Why, pray tell, has this Clinton judge not opened the door to Congress to require us to participate, with our dollars, in any enterprise that could be deemed part of interstate commerce?
Methadras
Noam Chomsky refused to pay his income tax for years. It seems you may agree with him on something. Because, yeah, income tax is alot of cash out of you pocket by the end of the year. And a lot of it goes to stuff I know you hate.
BTW you DO pay for the highway even if you don't use it. And you DO pay for the police and fire dept even if you never need them. So now you MUST purchase insurance. It seems your anger is ONLY on the PRINCIPLE of the thing because you most likely have insurance anyway.
Matt:
The fire dept was formed to fight fires at the properties of people who had paid their dues. I don't see criminal negligence in this case. Morally right vs. Legally/ criminally wrong is quite a different set of arguments.
Matt,
I don't like the insurance companies. Why should I like the idea of replacing them with one BIG insurance company with guns? That would be the government, and I like that even less than I like the insurance companies.
The best thing we could possibly do is to return to the health care market as it existed before insurance existed. Just pay cash. Services would be affordable, because medical professionals want to sell their services, and will not price themselves out of the market.
How could you gin up the price of apples to fifty bucks each? Institute 'Apple Insurance'.
And I refuse to comply with any directive to go out and buy for my own use anything whatever. Obviously, taxes for legitimate government services (police, fire) are not personal use expenditures. You have to be a fuckwit of first caliber to confuse them. The government may go fuck themselves, or shoot me, but mostly go fuck themselves
Matt said...
Methadras
As it stands now and has stood for years the insurance companies are a nameless faceless entity deciding if you can or cannot be covered due to pre-exisitng conditions. I have friends who cannot get insurance because of an ulcer. Think about that.
Hey, idiot. That is a bald-faced moronic lie. Did you just make that up. People can get insurance with pre-existing conditions. Furthermore, my insurance agent is my representative to the insurance company he reps. Therefore, if something happens to me and I need help with something from the insurance company, he is the guy I go to usually to get it solved. He is therefore, not nameless, nor faceless, dumbfuck. Your friends ulcer is probably from listening to you make up bullshit to dovetail with your fantasy ideology of your government being your hero.
Go read the HIIPA laws. There are provisions within the law that allows for insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions. You can't be this fucking stupid. Oh wait.
The WHOLE idea of insurance companies is to MAKE money.
Did your brain actually think this? Newsflash, dipshit, the WHOLE idea of a company is to MAKE money.
Therefore the MORE people they can deny coverage to the less they have to pay for someone's illness.
There are legal channels that anyone can take to fight such absurd claims by a company. The contract for an insurance company to accept premiums as a function of paying the claim for a the person that is being insured is an actionable thing. If an insurance company denies someones claim, there are multiple avenues to persue to get that changed. Next.
THAT is tyranny my friend.
I'm not your friend, douche.
The government is trying to stop that. If you think this is tyranny then I guess you think ALL taxes are tyranny. And if you do then maybe you aren't thinking much.
How can you even type this with a straight face. Do you lie constantly to yourself and friends. Are you a pathological liar or just willfully ignorant?
@ Revenant - "So what about atheists who refuse to go to the doctor for secular reasons? Is the judge saying that no such people exist, or is he saying that these people haven't really refused to use medical services even though they've refused to use medical services?"
The Federal Courts have already ruled out Atheists when, on 8/19/05, "the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Wisconsin ruled atheism is a religion." http://furtheradventuresofindigored.blogspot.com/2005/08/atheism-is-religion.html
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895
We Atheists will have to come up with a non-deity reason to refuse medical care while appealling to the healing power of something akin to prayer. Good luck with that.
Best strategy is for many thousands to refuse participation, forcing the IRS(the responsible agency) to prosecute scofflaws for the $25,000 fine for not having health insurance. And good luck with that.
Matt:
The conflict is between what should the govt collective provide: most here say just the absolute necessities while liberals want that plus the nice to have extra stuff and liberal never indicate if there is an endline to the collective needs. That is why the Tea Parties sprung up.
If an insurance company denies someones claim, there are multiple avenues to persue to get that changed. Next.
But now, according to this judge, it is all of our responsibilities to not adversely affect the health insurance market.
So what if we get too expensive to insure? Doesn't this judge's reasoning justify government mandating against certain expensive courses of treatment?
Or am I logic challenged tonight?
Maybee:
You are right. It will be easiest to get your surgery approved by Uncle Sam just after an election.
It will be very hard to get a surgery approved just before an election or when the guvmint is cutting their budget.
The ruling means that we are all born into servitude to the federal government.
We aren't free, we are their slaves and must do what they say, simply because we entered this life.
If that doesn't get your blood boiling, you are already a slave in your mind, or have already given up.
That's some powerfully creative reasoning. All graduates of University of Michigan (both undergrad and JD, in Judge Steeh's case) should be proud.
To bad he's male, white, and over 60 years old, or he'd surely be Supreme material in President Obama's eyes.
Question: Does being a board member at a medical center constitute a conflict of interest in this case?
"It seems your anger is ONLY on the PRINCIPLE of the thing because you most likely have insurance anyway."
Other than the PRINCIPLE of the thing, what else is there?
Dare I ask what this guy's ERA happens to be whenever he waxes Constitutional (as opposed to Kathleen Sebelius' pussy); i.e., is he on the farm team for the 9th Circuit in terms of being overturned?
Dust Bunny Queen said...
And thus advances the revolution one step closer to actual violence.
I. am. not. joking.
Just happened to see a special on Ben Franklin on one of the History Channels. And you are right on the money.
This really is how revolutions start. Witness the Stamp Act - they thought we our consent was unnecessary, either.
The WHOLE idea of insurance companies is to MAKE money.
So what if the whole idea of government-controlled insurance is to make money? They certainly could use it.
This whole mess was precipitated by POTUS's idiotic mother who lived overseas for years and years without US health insurance, got sick, and then came back expecting care on someones else's dime.
I wonder if whether under the new HCR his mom could have done that (not pay in) and then still expect help?
Matt, actually, my insurance company is not "nameless." It has a name; you might be surprised to learn that most of them do. Also, insurers are not "an entity." There are a lot of them, and they compete with each other for business. As for faces, when I call mine, a person answers the phone, and on the rare occasions when I've had to argue with them about covering something, I usually have won. That's because they want to keep my business -- they are driven by this thing called the "profit motive" (esoteric, I know) that makes them want to satisfy their customers.
If you think we aren't going to be dealing with a "nameless faceless entity" when the federal government takes over our health care and starts deciding who gets how much of what, have I got a bridge to sell you!
So NOT participating in a market is a Commerce Clause covered purview of the federal government? Like choosing NOT to have insurance? What about choosing NOT to have a medical procedure? What if that procedure is breast augmentation?
That way lies madness...
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." The Founders would RAGE against this machine of tyranny.
He's given us the reasoning for the Constitutionality of Death Panels.
El Pollo has obviously paid attention and drawn a very reasonable conclusion as to how Pres. Obama thinks and why he is so resentful.
As I understand it... the car insurance thing is based on the fact that we *don't* all have to drive. In practical terms that's not entirely true, but a whole lot of people do go their entire lives without a car or car insurance.
"I think we agree on this. The fire dept is criminally negligent."
Nonsense. The home owner decided he didnt want to pay the $6 a month for fire protection. His choice. Why then should anyone pay taxes or fees for fire protection?
But now, according to this judge, it is all of our responsibilities to not adversely affect the health insurance market.
He must be concerned with more than just the insurance market, though. What about the market for actually providing health care?
We have a good idea by the time kids finish high school of which ones could qualify to practice medicine after another eight years of study, but in the benighted pre-Obama era they were allowed to choose whether to go into medicine or not. You don't let a cog decide how it's going to fit into the machine!
Like Matt says, there are impositions on our liberty already, so there's no reason to oppose slavery at all.
Synova,
It is your choice. You choose to live and work where you need a car to get around. You could choose to live where one is not necessary. I live in Queens, NYC and I do not have a car. I don't even have a driver's license. In fact a car where I live is a liability because of parking and traffic. So it is my choice to live here and do without a car and car insurance.
Methadras
Dude, where have you been for...oh let's see the past few years? Insurance companies deny people ALL THE TIME for preexisting conditions. That is the one of the MAIN freakin' points of the health care bill. Seriously where have you been? Under a rock in Glenn Beck's garden?
I mean I can't argue with someone who does not accept reality. The pre-existing list is LONG and absurd as well.
And no I'm not lying about the friend with the ulcer. Wish I was. They key is once she got a job she could get coverage though her job. But as you know many out there don't have jobs and some do get sick. Fact, friend. *;^)
"The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings, (...)they cannot opt out of this market."
Is there *any* situation where this does not apply?
Anything at all?
Synova
True about fighting something based on principle. I was against some of the provisions of the patriot act on principle. Esp. the power of the government to spy on US citizens. I'm still concerned about it to some degree.
So I get being opposed to this part of the health care bill on principle. It is supposed to help bring premiums down because no one will be denied anymore. But frankly I am not sure it will bring costs down. I think the bill is too weak. [I wanted a public option.]
Methadras said:
"The contract for an insurance company to accept premiums as a function of paying the claim for a the person that is being insured is an actionable thing. If an insurance company denies someones claim, there are multiple avenues to persue to get that changed."
Nope.
Mom
If the Federal government was taking over the health industry and the insurance companies I would agree with you. But they are not. They simply expanded medicaid to those who are uninsured.
But I have worked with insurance companies too. Trust me, people have to fight them for coverage all the time. Wouldn't it be cool if you never had to call the insurance company to 'win' an argument about what they will cover?
I don't have insurance.
I can't get catastrophic insurance. You know real insurance. I don't want the meddlesome HMO, the "plans", the "networks". I like urgent care. I know the doctors. They know me and my family. I've got a more expensive family doc for non-mundane things, too.
Had to use the emergency room this year and it cost about $18K. (Negotiated down from $80K since I paid cash.) Catastrophic coverage to take care of everything beyond $5-10K would've been nice.
But the gov't made that illegal.
The evil insurance companies would've sold it to me. They might have tried to screw me but I can fight them.
I can't fight the gov't; at least not in the sense of suing them for the amount they cost me.
But I can fight other ways. And I plan to.
Matt, as far as I could tell the Patriot Act as well as Homeland Security itself were enacted to calm the population and prove that "something was being done."
Generally the demand to "do something" comes from liberals who can't stand the appearance of not caring enough but don't care so much about the end result so long as "something is done."
Almost certainly this always results in greater government involvement, less freedom and weaker people if for no other reason than the "big government equals small people" principle. We no longer *expect* to be required to take care of ourselves.
There are elements, certainly, about how we deliver health care in this country that are inefficient and ought to be improved. But every step that governments take, starting at the State level when laws are passed to remove market forces from insurance purchases make it worse not better. Looking at problems caused by government mandates and concluding that a comprehensive government mandate compelling every citizen's behavior and participation would solve all of that is irrational.
Call out the instigator,
Because there's something in the air
We've got to get it together sooner or later
Because the revolution's here
And you know it's right
I agree with one of the first posters:
This.will.not.stand.
It may take bullets to heads, but...it.will.not.stand
The plaintiffs have not opted out of the FOOD market because, as living, breathing beings, who do not oppose EATING on religious grounds, they cannot opt out of this market.
Wouldn't it be better if blake could get insurance for the big stuff, for the "catastrophic" events that cost so much that payments over time are impossible?
Wouldn't it be better for people to be able to get insurance just for their healthy kids even if they can't afford it or can't get it for themselves?
The government steps in and says... not good enough!! Changes the rules and instead of people having those types of coverage they go without any coverage at all.
And then the government comes in and you KNOW they are going to count those uninsured people as the ones that are now insured due to the wonderful new government provisions.
Synova: If you operate a car, you could cause serious damage to others. That is the rationale that permits the govt to require auto insurance.
This judge seems to be saying, anybody could get sick and partake of medical services so it is OK for govt to mandate purchase of health insurance. Could he next require us all to buy "roof over my head" insurance in the event we become homeless or "malingerer" insurance in the event we are shiftless and can't hold a job and support ourselves financially?
Hahahahhaha-suck it.
Either that or get your so-called conservaterians to overturn Wickard and Raich.
It's not like those have the precedence overturned in the case of Citizens United. If your guys are radical enough to overturn that one, then let's see them put their money where their mouths are.
I can't fight the gov't
Not if you can't persuade your fellow citizens to change it.
Synova
To me the argument ultimately comes down to what is the purpose and role of a government in our daily lives. I lean more toward one that provides services via taxes but doesn't get too much in the way of the 'free market'. I just don't think this bill does. In fact the insurance companies stand to make a whole lot more money now that people are forced to buy from them.
Health care is a problem as you know. How do we fix it? I just don't think sitting on the sidelines does it. You can't blame Obama for trying. He did win in 2008 with health care as one of his main objectives. Now he stands to lose a bit in 2010. We'll see where we go from here. If the GOP has a better plan I can get on board with that if it means costs come down and people can avoid bankruptcy due to health costs.
Tony, or buy vegetables.
Not only are vegetables good and healthy for us, but failing to buy enough vegetables impacts a large segment of our economy from farmers to truckers to grocers.
Certainly it's in the scope of government to force us to *purchase* the vegetables, even if they still can't force us to eat them.
The logical conclusion of Wickard is just as DBQ said, we're not allowed to do anything for ourselves because whatever we do disturbs the markets.
Only when it says you can't. DBQ's violent, unhinged lunacy aside, the gov't hasn't seen fit to regulate the market for tomatoes or knitted stockings in the way it has marijuana, wheat or health insurance.
So the answer, as always, is that you can change to gov't to say otherwise, but that would take convincing your fellow citizens. And you lunkheads live in too much of a bubble of privilege, self-interest, and lack of concern to give a damn about that.
Ritmo,
Why would you enjoy this? My family's suffering at the hands of capricious totalitarians amuses you?
Wickard and Raich were wrongly decided. But they were wrongly decided in favor of a form of government you seem to approve of (one with unlimited power).
Thomas was right on Raich.
And if I can't convince my fellow citizens of that, I'll do what my ancestors did and either rebel or relocate.
Wolverines.
I laughed when first I saw that line way back in the 80's.
Now that the Bear is merely a Mafia with shitty cigarettes and there is still no toilet paper... their side has still taken Washington. Or rather, a bunch of dumbass campus communists all growed up have filled the vacuum where morals and purpose used to be.
I saw in the news today where EPA rules (administrative, of course) coming into effect the end of this year will effectively double the cost of ... concrete.
Fucking A. No fuel, no building materials, no water for crops, no small business, no big business that isn't .gov.
Nothing about these last two years makes a lick of sense unless you recognize it for the attack on the Republic that is most certainly is.
Wolverines. Not so funny. Not any more.
Submit? Nope.
Synova:
I think the guvmint pays Althouse to promote carrots from time to time.
You can't blame Obama for trying.
Since his attempt is a giant threat to liberty - Yes We Can!
He did win in 2008 with health care as one of his main objectives.
He ran against the individual mandate that he just went to court to force on us. One plank of his argument in court was that the health care deform bill is Constitutional because the government has the power to levy taxes. Remember what he said about taxes in 2008?
I do believe I've seen the light.
We are going back to my husband's Grandmother's teachings. We strayed briefly, but still have all of the teachings.
(Really we do....all the books from the 1860's and 70's that were in the family library. The books are rather interesting in that they seem to be a repeat of what we are going through today spiritually. His Grandparents were very strong Christian Science practicioners. We never paid much attention to it. Thought they were anachronistic. However, it does seem relevant now. I'll put some of the text on my blog in the next few days)
I have decided that Christian Science is the correct path.
Hallejulah, I have seen the light!!!.
Oh. And FUCK you Obama and the US Government.
Matt, I suppose that depends on which services you thing count.
I'd count law enforcement, defense, and a certain amount of regulation related to things that impact everyone such as air and water quality and safety. Fraud and various predatory business things I'd call law enforcement and include there.
I wouldn't actually include charity at all, and I think it's a sad thing that people have been conditioned to abdicate their responsibility for this to government. At this point they *have* so I'd not suggest a unilateral disbanding of charity services. But it would be nice if people at least *expressed* the proper place for charity and moral responsibility for ones self and then ones family first, before helping others as resources and inclinations allow.
It probably made sense to someone to force people to save for retirement by creating social security, but that got screwed up. Welfare probably seemed like something simple that morality demanded, but look at how those incentives have manifested.
Sometimes, and often with government, *caring* is like a 2 year old trying to fix what she broke. Her little heart is in the right place, but there's no chance of anything good coming from it.
Why would you enjoy this?
I don't enjoy anything but pointing out the hypocrisy of a crowd that didn't care enough to make a bigger deal out of Raich, let alone its predecessor, Wickard. This is just a logical consequence of it.
My family's suffering at the hands of capricious totalitarians amuses you?
This is a non-sequitur but, of course, you must be desperate. However, if that's the perspective you're stuck on, I could easily respond by quoting the horror stories that this legislation will now address and ask, did all their suffering amuse you?
Wickard and Raich were wrongly decided.
Tell that to Scalia.
But they were wrongly decided in favor of a form of government you seem to approve of (one with unlimited power).
I simply think the market for health care has failures that the opposition never gave a damn about, regardless of those other decisions or their implications.
Thomas was right on Raich.
Was Scalia, who merely disagreed with the majority on their reasoning if not the outcome?
And if I can't convince my fellow citizens of that, I'll do what my ancestors did and either rebel or relocate.
Suit yourself. And good luck finding a modern country that devalues community to the degree that we do in the states. I'm sure sub-Saharan Africa and other regions have the kind of underdeveloped and lawless environments that would better suit your current political outlook.
Or else we can always have the anti-health care violent revolution proposed by that absolute wacko, DBQ. I'm sure that will go over well.
Today I submitted my Permit to Purchase. Never owned a gun before. Colt Defender, is the plan.
Might come in handy.
Got my eye on a used shotgun, too.
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
I can't fight the gov't
Not if you can't persuade your fellow citizens to change it.
Good little National Socialist that he is, Ritmo wants everyone to think Resistance Is Futile.
Never forget, however, that support for the American Revolution was never more than 1 in 3 Americans.
Only when it says you can't. DBQ's violent, unhinged lunacy aside, the gov't hasn't seen fit to regulate the market for tomatoes or knitted stockings in the way it has marijuana, wheat or health insurance.
Yet.
So the answer, as always, is that you can change to gov't to say otherwise,
????? Even Ritmo can't understand himself sometimes
but that would take convincing your fellow citizens.
Ya mean like a Tea Party???
And you lunkheads live in too much of a bubble of privilege, self-interest, and lack of concern to give a damn about that.
Unlike all the Lefties like Pelosi Galore, who told us today that food stamps and unemployment checks are the best use of tax dollars. She's only concerned that we stay good little slaves to the Welfare State.
DBQ's violent, unhinged lunacy aside, the gov't hasn't seen fit to regulate the market for tomatoes or knitted stockings in the way it has marijuana, wheat or health insurance.
Yet..... you fucktard.
Unhinged isn't even close to how I feel about the raping of our freedoms.
And go to hell, Ritmo. Yer a bore.
Change yer name again or sumpin', huh? This run's tiresome dull.
Synova said...
"As I understand it... the car insurance thing is based on the fact that we *don't* all have to drive. In practical terms that's not entirely true, but a whole lot of people do go their entire lives without a car or car insurance."
The auto insurance mandates are state laws. That's a critical point, Constitution-wise.
Keep it up, DBQ. I'm sure you'll be attracting the attention of others who are interested in your violent hyperbole before you know it. And not in the way you hope.
That's a great way to make whatever point you didn't have, Pogo the Ignorant.
DBQ. I'm sure you'll be attracting the attention of others who are interested in your violent hyperbole before you know it. And not in the way you hope.
Fuck off and die dickhead.
I mean that in the nicest possible "virtural" way, of course.
I don't enjoy anything but pointing out the hypocrisy of a crowd that didn't care enough to make a bigger deal out of Raich, let alone its predecessor, Wickard. This is just a logical consequence of it.
My feeling is that you don't know anything about what sort of deal was made of Raich by the people you're calling hypocrites, much less the 70-year-old Wickard.
This is a non-sequitur but, of course, you must be desperate.
It's not at all non-sequitur. And I'm not desperate. I'm pointing out that the government regularly makes me suffer for capricious totalitarian reasons you seem to support.
However, if that's the perspective you're stuck on, I could easily respond by quoting the horror stories that this legislation will now address and ask, did all their suffering amuse you?
Talk about non-sequitur. Did I cause that through capricious and malicious attempts to take away others' freedom?
Tell that to Scalia.
Why single out Scalia? I think it was a treacherous decision, but there were five other justices that joined him.
I simply think the market for health care has failures that the opposition never gave a damn about, regardless of those other decisions or their implications.
And I have presented you with a state-mandated failure.
Was Scalia, who merely disagreed with the majority on their reasoning if not the outcome?
No, he had his head up his ass. "Necessary and proper" is as horrible a villain as the Commerce Clause.
Suit yourself. And good luck finding a modern country that devalues community to the degree that we do in the states.
If I don't submit to your grandiose notions of enlargement of government power, I devalue community?
It doesn't matter if I donate time and money to charity, volunteer for community outreach programs, train my kids to go out there and help others--none of that matters, because if I'm against government health care, I "devalue community".
I'm sure sub-Saharan Africa and other regions have the kind of underdeveloped and lawless environments that would better suit your current political outlook.
It's the current crop of "leaders" who have undermined the rule of law in the past few years.
Or maybe you haven't noticed that whether or not some get to keep their insurance depends on the whim of Kathleen Sebelius. Whether or not your contracts need to be respected depends on the (unlegislated) whim of the Administration.
But, hey, have it your way: I'm willing to go back to the lawlessness of 2008. Or 1990. Or 1940. Or 1890. Seems like we managed not to kill each other with machetes without government healthcare.
Or else we can always have the anti-health care violent revolution proposed by that absolute wacko, DBQ. I'm sure that will go over well.
You might be surprised how well.
Sheesh. Memo to myself: URL Too Large error does not mean the comment didn't post.
"Why would you enjoy this? My family's suffering at the hands of capricious totalitarians amuses you?"
Of course it does! He, just like so many of his fellow lefties, would trade their final shred of freedom if it could be converted to vengeance upon their "enemies" (anyone who seems to be other than a "right-thinking" person). This is the attitude that precedes revolutions and wars, when there is no more concern for the well-being of the nation, no more desire for anything except gaining and retaining power, no more discourse other than mockery, no ideas motivating politics beyond partisan victories. This is what happens when the powerful are no longer held to account for their decisions, when the system becomes so thoroughly gamed that people can vote themselves into permanent, unaccountable recipients of largess. This is what happens when the President himself seems to think that his existential boredom is reason enough to play gigantic, dangerous games with the fate of the people. And we started down this road a long time ago, when the government decided that it existed as an entity external to the will of the people of the United States.
I think of many blog commenters as little ids, unfettered from the superego of reality where they might get punched back into submission for their transgressions. Well, if the sneering, garrulous little ids around here and elsewhere are indicative of the psychological health of our national consciousness, our schizophrenic crack-up is fast approaching.
It's like "fighting words", Ritmo.
We all learned our lesson.
To calmly and with great civility explain that one court ruling after another are rapidly approaching the point of no return, if that point has not already been reached, is only proof that it is not true at all.
It's like saying to a person that they have gone too far... if there are no tears or a thrown object... when you leave and never speak to them again they are all confused because you never *told* them something was wrong.
It's very like fighting words... if a punch was never thrown then that's proof that you actually weren't offended.
Well, new rules. Only stupid people wouldn't adapt and change methods.
Courts that rule on Constitutionality must be seen as ruling on everything that could possibly be related. And it's *too* *far*. When the People are slapped in the face and told that the government can steal property just *so long as* it's to enrich their own coffers, and simply being *alive* means that the government can force you to purchase goods and services... we're screwed.
But saying, "Excuse me, Sir, but this is unacceptable and I'm quite certain that it will soon reach a point at which people will decide that human dignity demands that they accept their criminal status and behave accordingly," isn't going to *work* because the response will be, "Well, you're not mad, so I think you're just lying for political advantage."
Well, fuck that.
It won't be that long before my children are all old enough not to be held hostage to my good behavior.
And I've always wanted a gun.
Dust Bunny Queen
Be sure to include what some other Christians have to say about Christian Science. Fun read.
Don't trust anyone over 30 was the mantra of the left baby boomers who now believe that the more govt we have the better!
I don't get it.
"My feeling is that you don't know anything about what sort of deal was made of Raich by the people you're calling hypocrites, much less the 70-year-old Wickard."
Exactly. But of course "we didn't make a big deal out of so-and-so" because it's already been decided that we're not right-thinking people. It's not about ideas, it's about being on the wrong team. Because of course every human idea can be reduced to a binary system! If you're not with us, you're against us!
"I don't get it."
Keeping up with the attitudes of the left is like keeping up with what's "cool" and what's "not cool" among teenagers. It's entirely capricious, arbitrary and ultimately inconsequential and futile.
Except of course the adolescents now control the government, and their caprices and whims are now enforced by the power of the State.
Ritmoron wrote: It's not like those have the precedence overturned in the case of Citizens United. If your guys are radical enough to overturn that one, then let's see them put their money where their mouths are.
"Precedence?" Jeez Louise, how ignorant can you be? Citizens United? BFD.
Except of course the adolescents now control the government, and their caprices and whims are now enforced by the power of the State.
That is how this decision feels to me - that it is based on a whim. It doesn't feel solid or ring true to me. Because you exist (have a body) you affect the market.
It seems like the beginnings of asserting that *the market* - the entire market, market place and all consumers are to be controlled by Congress - meaning that there is no sphere in whihch the government can not intrude. Everything is, afterall, a market or affecting a market is it not?
It seems like the beginnings of asserting that *the market* - the entire market, market place and all consumers are to be controlled by Congress - meaning that there is no sphere in whihch the government can not intrude. Everything is, afterall, a market or affecting a market is it not?
Yes. Effectively this decision would sweep away the last vestiges of limited government. What would Congress not be able to do under this interpretation of the commerce clause?
In a better world this would cause the supreme court to reconsider its foolish reasoning in Raich, but I don't think that's going to happen.
Fuck off and die dickhead.
I mean that in the nicest possible "virtural" way, of course.
Of course you do. It's your attempt to soften up how truly uncivilized and barbaric you really are. But the take-home point stands.
Good little Fascist that he is, Edutcher wants everyone to think Democracy Is Futile.
Behold the incoherence of someone who can't understand how civilized persuasion obviates violence.
"DBQ's violent, unhinged lunacy aside, the gov't hasn't seen fit to regulate the market for tomatoes or knitted stockings in the way it has marijuana, wheat or health insurance."
Yet..... you fucktard.
Unhinged isn't even close to how I feel about the raping of our freedoms.
Unhinged is a sufficient description of someone who fears the regulation of tomatoes and knitted stockings to the point of violence, with the language of "rape" thrown in, to boot.
Yes. Effectively this decision would sweep away the last vestiges of limited government. What would Congress not be able to do under this interpretation of the commerce clause?
In a better world this would cause the supreme court to reconsider its foolish reasoning in Raich, but I don't think that's going to happen.
That is why it seems like a whim to me. It lacks the weight of substance. There is no consideration of natural rights in which the affects upon the market are measured against.
To say that because you exist - you have impact - and therfore you are subject to government regulation and control - directly violates the founding principles of the United States. [the government is limited by the natural rights of the people]
That's why - much as people hate the anti-gay church that protests at military funerals - they recognize their natural right to free speech. Or, as much as people abhor murder and violence - they do not (usually) question the natural right outlined in the second amendment.
This decision just seems like a lark to me. Something I might have thought of as an excuse sometime :-)
Matt
Methadras
Dude, where have you been for...oh let's see the past few years? Insurance companies deny people ALL THE TIME for preexisting conditions. That is the one of the MAIN freakin' points of the health care bill. Seriously where have you been? Under a rock in Glenn Beck's garden?
I mean I can't argue with someone who does not accept reality. The pre-existing list is LONG and absurd as well.
And no I'm not lying about the friend with the ulcer. Wish I was. They key is once she got a job she could get coverage though her job. But as you know many out there don't have jobs and some do get sick. Fact, friend. *;^)
10/7/10 9:37 PM
Shrill, arrogant and stupid is what you are. What, you think Medicare and Medicaid will cover every procedure and pay for every drug? Try suing them for denial of coverage. You embody everything that is wrong with the parasite class in this country; an arrogant sense of entitlement to other people's money. Your problems are not my obligation. Your friend has an ulcer, I'm sorry to hear that but that is not my problem and that is not my obligation. Your friend can pay out of pocket, her family can kick in or you can be a sport and pay her bill.
As for the cheap bastard who would not spend 6 bucks for fire protection, screw him. He gambled and lost a bet he made with himself. And that is what insurance is: a bet. You are betting something bad will happen; fire, theft, food, death and so on. The insurer is the bookmaker who calculates the odds and the premium is what you are betting.
This idiot judge has for all practical purposes said the equivalent of everyone must buy auto insurance whether you own a car or not or even have a drivers license because not having auto insurance effects the auto insurance market. The same can be said about every type of insurance, that is how stupid and crazy this decision is and how stupid and crazy you and those like you who support this insanity are. Has it ever occurred to that virtually everything can be reduced to an economic transaction and therefore effect markets, has it occurred to you that by buying in to this logic the government could compel everyone to do almost anything or forbid almost anything under the guise of commerce?
DBQ is right, the 1942 case Wickard could have only have been decided by a liberal, the stupidity is awe inspiring. Bake your own bread? Your own cookies? Grow you own tomatoes? Hunt or fish? Sew your own clothes? Take Wickard to it's logical conclusion and all of these things are the same as the farmer who grew his own wheat for his own consumption and animal feed. These cases make no sense at all unless the expansion of government power is the overarching point.
And the 10:47 rambling post (manifesto) concludes tonight's meeting of Political Organization for the Socially Challenged.
Matt
Methadras
Dude, where have you been for...oh let's see the past few years? Insurance companies deny people ALL THE TIME for preexisting conditions. That is the one of the MAIN freakin' points of the health care bill. Seriously where have you been? Under a rock in Glenn Beck's garden?
I mean I can't argue with someone who does not accept reality. The pre-existing list is LONG and absurd as well.
And no I'm not lying about the friend with the ulcer. Wish I was. They key is once she got a job she could get coverage though her job. But as you know many out there don't have jobs and some do get sick. Fact, friend. *;^)
10/7/10 9:37 PM
Shrill, arrogant and stupid is what you are. What, you think Medicare and Medicaid will cover every procedure and pay for every drug? Try suing them for denial of coverage. You embody everything that is wrong with the parasite class in this country; an arrogant sense of entitlement to other people's money. Your problems are not my obligation. Your friend has an ulcer, I'm sorry to hear that but that is not my problem and that is not my obligation. Your friend can pay out of pocket, her family can kick in or you can be a sport and pay her bill.
As for the cheap bastard who would not spend 6 bucks for fire protection, screw him. He gambled and lost a bet he made with himself. And that is what insurance is: a bet. You are betting something bad will happen; fire, theft, food, death and so on. The insurer is the bookmaker who calculates the odds and the premium is what you are betting.
This idiot judge has for all practical purposes said the equivalent of everyone must buy auto insurance whether you own a car or not or even have a drivers license because not having auto insurance effects the auto insurance market. The same can be said about every type of insurance, that is how stupid and crazy this decision is and how stupid and crazy you and those like you who support this insanity are. Has it ever occurred to that virtually everything can be reduced to an economic transaction and therefore effect markets, has it occurred to you that by buying in to this logic the government could compel everyone to do almost anything or forbid almost anything under the guise of commerce?
DBQ is right, the 1942 case Wickard could have only have been decided by a liberal, the stupidity is awe inspiring. Bake your own bread? Your own cookies? Grow you own tomatoes? Hunt or fish? Sew your own clothes? Take Wickard to it's logical conclusion and all of these things are the same as the farmer who grew his own wheat for his own consumption and animal feed. These cases make no sense at all unless the expansion of government power is the overarching point.
Did I cause that through capricious and malicious attempts to take away others' freedom?
You perpetuate it by effectively telling them that if the market fails to provide them what it has no problem providing others, to screw off and die.
Apparently DBQ sees that as a civilized form of dialog and interaction, though, so perhaps the audience is biased.
It won't be that long before my children are all old enough not to be held hostage to my good behavior.
They're from a generation who increasingly disagrees with you on these issues.
And I've always wanted a gun.
So did Dixie.
There is a long line of jurisprudence supporting this starting with Wickard and including Raich.
I was screaming bloody murder and supporting Thomas when Raich was decided.
Ah. But it was only about pot and most folks were not too interested. You know the old "dope is medicine scam".
Well my friends they are now coming for you.
So now you fools have voted in a President who has appointed a Justice or two and how do you think the justices he appointed will come down on the issue? Not that the R Party as constituted in 2008 would have been much better.
I hold each and every one of you who voted for ∅ responsible. Most of all Ann who is smart and should have known better. Though the comments here she had to be one of the most well informed voters in the nation. Too smart by half eh Ann?
"And the 10:47 rambling post (manifesto) concludes tonight's meeting of Political Organization for the Socially Challenged."
Rich coming from you, who posts an average of 60 comments a day on someone else's blog. But I happily accept being "socially challenged", whatever that might mean. Socially challenged is a virtue in art, science and just about every other thing that actually matters in the world.
"They're from a generation who increasingly disagrees with you on these issues. "
I wasn't aware that "generations" had homogeneous opinions. But your side's entire shtick is predicated on large lumps of undifferentiated, needy chanters so for the sake of argument I'll accept the premise.
Boy won't they be surprised when mommy and daddy and the rest of the productive class are dead and gone and there's no one left to foot the bill!
Why single out Scalia? I think it was a treacherous decision, but there were five other justices that joined him.
They certainly don't earn my respect for agreeing. But all it took was five and he was the most conservative, the "darling" of the right. One respected for the astounding legal mind people like to think he possesses. And he chose to broke the tie or what would would have been a better decision in the other direction. Way to go.
Scalia is much more biased than his defenders admit. Trying the shoe of his previous rulings on the other foot wouldn't have worked for him in Bush v. Gore.
Traditionalguy was right ...
There are companies that compress or liquefy air, and sell it across state lines. Under the Commerce Clause, the federal government therefore has the power, and the duty, to regulate your breathing.
All you screamers about tyranny - where were you when it came to protesting the tyranny of our Drug War? Poseurs.
"Well the dopers deserved it. Scum of the earth." Mouthed so often it is a cliche.
Welcome my friends. Because you are now scum of the earth too. And deserve it.
There is a God and He IS Just.
Welcome to Cosmic Justice MOFOs.
Rich coming from you, who posts an average of 60 comments a day on someone else's blog. But I happily accept being "socially challenged", whatever that might mean. Socially challenged is a virtue in art, science and just about every other thing that actually matters in the world.
Politics matters to anyone not willing to upend the entire civilization that people talented enough to overcome their challenges with art and science have also helped to advance.
And then there are people who have no special affection for human civilization, such as DBQ.
And for a guy more likely than most here to have an adequate handle on mathematics, you could afford to not fudge those numbers.
"They're from a generation who increasingly disagrees with you on these issues. "
I wasn't aware that "generations" had homogeneous opinions. But your side's entire shtick is predicated on large lumps of undifferentiated, needy chanters so for the sake of argument I'll accept the premise.
I can make a generalization on how popular or unpopular an opinion is in a group without pretending that the more popular one is thereby forced upon every member therein.
And so can you.
Boy won't they be surprised when mommy and daddy and the rest of the productive class are dead and gone and there's no one left to foot the bill!
It's not about being productive or unproductive. It's about the baby boomer generation thinking in terms of entitlement and easy money, and putting off their problems until their kids and grandkids came along.
Everything's been put off for so long and the Tea Partiers are still too mathematically inept to find a way to put a dent in the budget at all, let alone address the lack of economic advantage this nation faces due to health care costs.
But at least the Republican base has an alias now, or a cipher. I guess their shame in declaring that they're still the same old base is a start.
"I was screaming bloody murder and supporting Thomas when Raich was decided."
So was I. The inestimable Randy Barnett delivered the oral argument on behalf of Angel Raich, and it was Justice Thomas' dissent in that case that convinced me of his brilliance, and why he was a better advocate of liberty than Scalia.
The spurious distinction between economic and political freedom continues to crumble.
Palladian,
Nice.
In my estimation Thomas is probably the most brilliant we have had on the Supreme Court in at least 100 years. Maybe ever.
And he ripped his fellows a new one in Kelo.
====
If the next election or two doesn't get things on the right track..... Well. It will have to get real ugly before it gets better. Didn't Jefferson say something about the blood of tyrants? Yes he did.
"Politics matters to anyone not willing to upend the entire civilization that people talented enough to overcome their challenges with art and science have also helped to advance."
I am not a great admirer of "human civilization", as it's pretty much been an unending darkness of murder, despair, tyranny and hatred since the beginning, a darkness punctured by a few bright lights along the way, but far too few. Perhaps as a free-thinking gay man with more than a few psychological quirks, I'm more skeptical about "civilization" than most.
And as far as "upending" things, it's your side that's been operating the dump truck out of which our country has been sliding for the last 4 years. People who chanted for "Change!" can't complain about the desire to recklessly upend systems.
Cumban Bob,
If I have wrecked my car and then get insurance and demand repairs for my pre-existing condition will you provide me with a policy? So I can get my car fixed?
Insurance is about risk. If there is certainty it is not insurance.
And I was a supporter of Raich even though I don't smoke marijuana and don't really approve of its recreational use. There are things called principles that should supersede personal tastes and feelings. Politicians are generally allergic to principles. Of course it's hard to have principles when you have no ideas upon which to base them...
Palladin,
Us Jewish folks have had a few arguments with "civilization" too.
Well we have a common enemy and I stand with you.
Hugs. Hippie hugs. The best.
I am not a great admirer of "human civilization", as it's pretty much been an unending darkness of murder, despair, tyranny and hatred since the beginning, a darkness punctured by a few bright lights along the way, but far too few. Perhaps as a free-thinking gay man with more than a few psychological quirks, I'm more skeptical about "civilization" than most.
Then I stand corrected, even if only in a matter of degree.
But how someone can admire art and science while forsaking the same civilization that prizes, demands, and makes these things both possible and worth the effort seems a bit odd. Face it, science and art (and all human achievements) have a symbiotic relationship with civilization. But I'll grant an artist the license to say something odd like that. For its own sake, of course.
And as far as "upending" things, it's your side that's been operating the dump truck out of which our country has been sliding for the last 4 years. People who chanted for "Change!" can't complain about the desire to recklessly upend systems.
Don't know what you mean by the first bit. Systems can be upended (and destroyed) by neglect as easily as they can be by coordinated efforts at change.
These systems of which you speak are not static things. A hater of civilization might not appreciate that, but it's true. The point is, and one a true conservative would understand, is to manage the inevitability of change. Not pretend it away.
But how someone can admire art and science while forsaking the same civilization that prizes, demands, and makes these things both possible and worth the effort seems a bit odd.
Not too odd at all. I have gladly made my contribution to civilization. But you know there are a few defects. And in celebrating the good one must always keep the evil in view.
I was there in the early days of the microprocessor. I was loosely involved with the guys who did the world's first BBS (I sold them stuff and gave them a few technical pointers). But aside from e-mail spam I worry the most about the watchers. The cameras. The attempts to control.
About 80% of humanity (by my reckoning) go about thinking "if only I was in control". While 20% of us go around thinking "if only we had a lot fewer controllers".
Which is why we have two parties whose deep philosophies are identical. It can be expressed in one word CONTROL.
Well, breaking their duopoly would certainly go a long way in reducing their control over the entire system.
And more local levels of government should be more democratic. This ridiculous idea of installing a mini-president in charge of every city, state and whatnot has got to go. At some point, the ideas (and having a good number of them available to debate and decide upon, at that) should matter more to an electorate than the fricking personalities.
You perpetuate it by effectively telling them that if the market fails to provide them what it has no problem providing others, to screw off and die.
Effectively? Even as I donate time, money and services to making sure that people without the means to provide for themselves can get healthcare?
Why aren't you addressing that? The conservatives you demonize donate far more than liberals. Do you not see how insulting you're being? I'm evil or (at best) negligent because I disagree with you politically?
Meanwhile, you're advocating a system we can see worldwide really DOES tell people to "screw off and die". Hell, Obama his own self told people they might have to limp off and die rather than get hip replacements.
My only question is: why does he get to choose?
Well, no, my other question is: Why are you willing to sacrifice individual freedom on the altar of the collective good--when in historical practice, it never, ever works out for the collective good?
They certainly don't earn my respect for agreeing. But all it took was five and he was the most conservative, the "darling" of the right.
You realize that even without him, Raich goes the same way, right?
One respected for the astounding legal mind people like to think he possesses. And he chose to broke the tie or what would would have been a better decision in the other direction. Way to go.
Nope, I guess you don't. Raich was decided 6-3. And Scalia didn't agree on the Commerce Clause aspect of it. He used the "necessary and proper" canard.
I think that's disgusting, but I'm not sure that you can get to this decision from HIS concurrence.
In any event, I'm not sure what it has to do with anything: It was a bad decision. A lot of us hated it at the time and I'd be surprised if you couldn't find plenty of bitching about it on this very blog if you searched.
I can't begrudge the people who didn't wake up to this at the time too much as it's always been American to try to ignore and avoid politics.
Obama and Congress are the ones who decided to make that impossible.
if the market fails to provide them what it has no problem providing others
The market doesn't "fail" to provide anyone with health coverage.
Some people just don't produce enough for it to be worth keeping them alive longer than they would naturally live.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, but to win, you have to argue that 100 years of Commerce Clause cases need to be overturned. That may be true, but I cannot see Obamacare getting overturned on constitutional grounds.
If I put on a conspiratorial hat for a moment, maybe the Adminstration WANTS to get it overturned, so they can then go to single payor. But I doubt it.
So was I. The inestimable Randy Barnett delivered the oral argument on behalf of Angel Raich, and it was Justice Thomas' dissent in that case that convinced me of his brilliance, and why he was a better advocate of liberty than Scalia.
Yes. Thomas is the best justice we've had on the court in my lifetime. Scalia seems to have the right instincts, but he doesn't always follow them. Or he has the wrong instincts and doesn't always follow those. Hard to tell.
I think Raich was purely a result of pragmatism. The justices were worried about the court's position in society if they were perceived as capricious. And they would have been, too, if they'd invalidated all federal drug laws in one fell swoop. Even if that was the right call.
Nonsense. Treason from Activists in black robes. The judicial branch has become politicized beyond repair.
I think it was Dickens who said the law is an ass--seems to me that this judge is a proctologist
Something I've been harping on for years: We're not a nation of laws, but of malleable guidelines.
Congress may regulate those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.
How does my not buying a financial product that can only be sold intrastate by law, affect interstate commerce?
The judge should be impeached and jailed for violating people's civil rights and his oath of office.
I have friends who cannot get insurance because of an ulcer. Think about that.
Well I thought about it and am throwing the bullshit flag. I know people who have far worse ailments than an ulcer who have obtained private insurance. Your friends either have other debilitating ailments or you're just lying.
Therefore the MORE people they can deny coverage to the less they have to pay for someone's illness.
Like any other insurance policy, a health insurance policy is a contract which provides a list of things that are covered and a list of things that aren't covered and is enforceble by law.
Again, the problem with health insurance is that it isn't insurance. We treat it as a pre-paid health plan in which we want to pay our $20 co pay and thats it. If you treated your auto insurance or homeowner's insurance in the same manner, you'd get dropped or see higher rates.
Except the ER bills the uninsured patient, who doesn't pay
"Uninsured" and "bankrupt" are not synonyms.
No, they are not. And if you want to be nitpicky, I will correct my statement to "who doesn't always pay."
But the rest of us pay for those who don't.
That is not an argument in support of this ruling, which I find abhorrent.
Therefore the MORE people they can deny coverage to the less they have to pay for someone's illness.
Sounds exactly like single payer in that regard, except single payer will be denying care, not coverage.
Even a fetus is covered by the clause, yet they have no rights - even to life. The commerce clause is the machine's fangs in the neck of human freedom.
Is no one here willing to defend the absolute flexibility inherent in the Commerce Clause?
OK, let's play a little game. First, you try to name a human activity that isn't "interstate commerce". Then, using reasoning similar to this judge's, I will show you that it is.
(Stolen from http://warlocketx.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/name-something-that-isnt/ which includes an interesting example.)
of course it was inevitable that a democrat lackey judge would rule this way but this pissant's low level ruling holds no real force. This will decided by SCOTUS.
and if Scotus blows it the final ruling will be made by free men.
Most (not all) of you are a little late to the game on this. Congress has passed thousands of laws based on the commerce clause over the years. Virtually all of which were unconstitutional. Now you wake up? To late. The train left the station years ago.
As the recently deceased Joe Sobran once wrote: "It's a good rule of thumb that anything called a program is unconstitutional."
He also said: "The framers were no match for modern lawyers."
The only "freedom" we have left is to do what Captain Kickass, Pelosi and Reid allow us to do. That's it.
The concept of limited government is dead, dead, dead. You are a servant of the State. Bend over.
First, you try to name a human activity that isn't "interstate commerce".
Bribery across state lines.
Bribery across state lines.
Damn, you play rough.
seriously dude, stop pointing that gun at me and saying I have to buy something from your crony.
"Bribery across state lines."
That is, Congress.
"The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings, who do not oppose medical services on religious grounds, they cannot opt out of this market."
Rats. I own a LOT of fish. It is going to be very expensive to insure all those living, breathing beings. Hmm, is there an aquatic exclusion?
Trey
Hmm, is there an aquatic exclusion?
Only if your fish know high-ranking HHS bureaucrats and/or work at McDonalds.
The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings, who do not oppose medical services on religious grounds, they cannot opt out of this market.
This is quite shocking. The fact that you are a living being subjects you to any manner of regulation under the commerce clause.
I wonder what will happen when some future religiously fundamentalist Congress decides to ban homosexual activity on the grounds that its practice leads to greater health care costs. Or what about a gay tax?
What's amazing is that this bankrupt way of thinking goes at least back to 1964. Look at the cases that are cited.
So tell me, what can people do that is NOT subject to the interstate commerce clause? Have they EVER rejected a law based on its reliance on the interstate commerce clause in recent history? And notice that they cite a recent marijuana case, a case that conservative justices SUPPORTED because they hate drugs so much.This shows beyond a shadow of doubt the ruling-class tendencies of ALL justices and judges; they just uphold this clause whenever they really, really want to regulate something they don't like.
These dumb people are just pushing the populace to the brink, and they don't even realize it. I predict the Reps take both the house and the senate in landslides, with the house having enough reps to override vetoes. Senate probably won't get to veto-override majority, but it will be close. This will be the largest landslide since the 1800s. The more things like THIS CASE that happen, the angrier people will become. Scalia et al had better wise up to the fact that they can't just keep justifying abuses of power whenever they coincide with things that they really don''t like. Federalism is federalism. If one state wants to legalize pot, that's their right, and the feds should have ZERO say in how this plays out. If they want to ship the pot across borders, then you can make a reasonable argument for regulating it, but not within a state's boundaries. If I choose to grow pot at home and smoke it, why does the federal government get to say I can't? Why? Because if they strike down that law based on abuse of commerce clause, they strike down a whole host of laws that use the same justification, and we can't have that. It would be CHAOS !!!
If I choose not to buy health insurance, you have NO POWER to regulate me and tell me otherwise. If I get hurt and I cannot pay, turn me away. They have seriously crossed a line here where they take bribes from companies to FORCE us to buy their products. Why do you think health care companies did not line up against this bill? Because they were paid off! They're going to get a huge windfall from this and they know it. What's next, everyone has to buy some magic CO2 "reducer" that is made by a company Al Gore owns? Since we are all "air breathers from birth" don't they have the authority to regulate CO2 levels and force us to compensate for our "emissions"?
Face facts, these "judges" only get to where they get to by playing the game. And playing the game means supporting the expansion of federal power. No judge will ever become a supreme court justice by constantly striking down federal laws according to an orginalist interpretation of the constitution. They'll be seen as a trouble maker and they'll never see the light of day. So they use judicial power to enforce their own views of right and wrong in VERY dubious areas such as drugs. It's this drug war that's giving the feds so much power, so the Reps can't say one thing about using the commerce clause as long as they support the drug war. Seriously, it's OK to tell a private citizen living in their own state that they can't grow certain plants that don't hurt anyone else? If that's OK, it sure is fine to make people buy health insurance.
What's amazing is that this bankrupt way of thinking goes at least back to 1964. Look at the cases that are cited.
So tell me, what can people do that is NOT subject to the interstate commerce clause? Have they EVER rejected a law based on its reliance on the interstate commerce clause in recent history? And notice that they cite a recent marijuana case, a case that conservative justices SUPPORTED because they hate drugs so much.This shows beyond a shadow of doubt the ruling-class tendencies of ALL justices and judges; they just uphold this clause whenever they really, really want to regulate something they don't like.
These dumb people are just pushing the populace to the brink, and they don't even realize it. I predict the Reps take both the house and the senate in landslides, with the house having enough reps to override vetoes. Senate probably won't get to veto-override majority, but it will be close. This will be the largest landslide since the 1800s. The more things like THIS CASE that happen, the angrier people will become. Scalia et al had better wise up to the fact that they can't just keep justifying abuses of power whenever they coincide with things that they really don''t like. Federalism is federalism. If one state wants to legalize pot, that's their right, and the feds should have ZERO say in how this plays out. If they want to ship the pot across borders, then you can make a reasonable argument for regulating it, but not within a state's boundaries. If I choose to grow pot at home and smoke it, why does the federal government get to say I can't? Why? Because if they strike down that law based on abuse of commerce clause, they strike down a whole host of laws that use the same justification, and we can't have that. It would be CHAOS !!!
If I choose not to buy health insurance, you have NO POWER to regulate me and tell me otherwise. If I get hurt and I cannot pay, turn me away. They have seriously crossed a line here where they take bribes from companies to FORCE us to buy their products. Why do you think health care companies did not line up against this bill? Because they were paid off! They're going to get a huge windfall from this and they know it. What's next, everyone has to buy some magic CO2 "reducer" that is made by a company Al Gore owns? Since we are all "air breathers from birth" don't they have the authority to regulate CO2 levels and force us to compensate for our "emissions"?
Face facts, these "judges" only get to where they get to by playing the game. And playing the game means supporting the expansion of federal power. No judge will ever become a supreme court justice by constantly striking down federal laws according to an orginalist interpretation of the constitution. They'll be seen as a trouble maker and they'll never see the light of day. So they use judicial power to enforce their own views of right and wrong in VERY dubious areas such as drugs. It's this drug war that's giving the feds so much power, so the Reps can't say one thing about using the commerce clause as long as they support the drug war. Seriously, it's OK to tell a private citizen living in their own state that they can't grow certain plants that don't hurt anyone else? If that's OK, it sure is fine to make people buy health insurance.
What's amazing is that this bankrupt way of thinking goes at least back to 1964. Look at the cases that are cited.
So tell me, what can people do that is NOT subject to the interstate commerce clause? Have they EVER rejected a law based on its reliance on the interstate commerce clause in recent history? And notice that they cite a recent marijuana case, a case that conservative justices SUPPORTED because they hate drugs so much.This shows beyond a shadow of doubt the ruling-class tendencies of ALL justices and judges; they just uphold this clause whenever they really, really want to regulate something they don't like.
These dumb people are just pushing the populace to the brink, and they don't even realize it. I predict the Reps take both the house and the senate in landslides, with the house having enough reps to override vetoes. Senate probably won't get to veto-override majority, but it will be close. This will be the largest landslide since the 1800s. The more things like THIS CASE that happen, the angrier people will become. Scalia et al had better wise up to the fact that they can't just keep justifying abuses of power whenever they coincide with things that they really don''t like. Federalism is federalism. If one state wants to legalize pot, that's their right, and the feds should have ZERO say in how this plays out. If they want to ship the pot across borders, then you can make a reasonable argument for regulating it, but not within a state's boundaries. If I choose to grow pot at home and smoke it, why does the federal government get to say I can't? Why? Because if they strike down that law based on abuse of commerce clause, they strike down a whole host of laws that use the same justification, and we can't have that. It would be CHAOS !!!
If I choose not to buy health insurance, you have NO POWER to regulate me and tell me otherwise. If I get hurt and I cannot pay, turn me away. They have seriously crossed a line here where they take bribes from companies to FORCE us to buy their products. Why do you think health care companies did not line up against this bill? Because they were paid off! They're going to get a huge windfall from this and they know it. What's next, everyone has to buy some magic CO2 "reducer" that is made by a company Al Gore owns? Since we are all "air breathers from birth" don't they have the authority to regulate CO2 levels and force us to compensate for our "emissions"?
Face facts, these "judges" only get to where they get to by playing the game. And playing the game means supporting the expansion of federal power. No judge will ever become a supreme court justice by constantly striking down federal laws according to an orginalist interpretation of the constitution. They'll be seen as a trouble maker and they'll never see the light of day. So they use judicial power to enforce their own views of right and wrong in VERY dubious areas such as drugs. It's this drug war that's giving the feds so much power, so the Reps can't say one thing about using the commerce clause as long as they support the drug war.
Have they EVER rejected a law based on its reliance on the interstate commerce clause in recent history?
Yes, there were two cases.
U.S. v. Lopez and U.S. v. Morrison are the two most prominent examples. It was hoped that these heralded a trend, but it fizzled out.
If I choose not to fizzle, can the federal government now regulate me to do so against my will based on the commerce clause?
The leftie commenters must not remember the days when the left questioned authority and resisted government's totalitarian impulses. Now, it appears, they are willing and eager to do the govt's bidding no matter the freedoms surrendered. Power. To. The. Fucking. People. Indeed.
"...to win, you have to argue that 100 years of Commerce Clause cases need to be overturned. "
So? Brown overturned more years' worth than that.
"The federal courts have become the abused bitch of our corrupt Congress and this bought off mother fucker proves it.
Hear this, judge. I. Will. Not. Be. Forced. To. Buy. Insurance.
I will not be forced by my elected officials to purchase products from their fucking campaign donors.
That way is tyranny.
They took this crap case to Detroit ... fucking crumbling Detroit ... where they could find this Democrat fucking hack of a corrupt court.
That shows what they think of their fucking law.
I. Will. Not. Fucking. Submit.
You fuckers have crossed a line from which you had better fucking retreat."
Amen.
Michael said...
The leftie commenters must not remember the days when the left questioned authority and resisted government's totalitarian impulses. Now, it appears, they are willing and eager to do the govt's bidding no matter the freedoms surrendered. Power. To. The. Fucking. People. Indeed.
It's not power to the people anymore. It's speaking truth to power. Get with it, man.
I really hate people who use the word "apropos" incorrectly. Where did they find this hack?
How does my not buying a financial product that can only be sold intrastate by law, affect interstate commerce?
The same way my growing some smokable weeds in my backyard would.
Using the Commerce Clause to substitute for a federal police power began under FDR. Regulation of narcotics (1922) and fully automatic weapons (1934) were at least nominally authorized under the taxing power. Authority to regulate the import and export of opiates came also by international treaty.
I really hate people who use the word "apropos" incorrectly
Huh? m-w.com defines apropos as meaning at once relevant and opportune. Let's plug the definition in and see if the sentence makes sense as the judge intended it:
The government makes the analogy -- both relevant and opportune -- of paying by credit card rather than by check
Sounds right to me.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा