After my last post, Nick responded with some new points, and once again, my readership has shown that they are damn smart people. Britt posted the following. I had to give this its own post, because he absolutely nailed the issue. Nick in italics. Britt is regular.
Well, I don’t think there’s been a case like this ever brought to the Supreme Court; if they wind up agreeing with you and the AG’s then so be it. But historically, the Supreme Court has allowed a fairly broad interpretation of the commerce clause. Has it been overreaching at times? Probably, but that’s a decision for much smarter people than me to make; that’s why we have the Supreme Court.
Wickard v. Filburn, where the USSC ruled that a farmer growing wheat for his own use was affecting interstate commerce because if he had not been growing wheat for his own use he’d be purchasing it. Court ruled that the FedGov could tell him what to do with his property because of this third degree affect on interstate commerce.
Now, here’s the thing: everything has an effect on everything else. If I sit through a green light and delay the passage of a truck, I am affecting interstate commerce. Does that mean sitting through green lights is something the federal government has the power to regulate?
I’m not trying to be a smartass here; if there is some precedent restricting the meaning of “general welfare,” I’m unaware of it, but I’d be happy to concede the point if you can bring it to my attention. Otherwise it seems as though healthcare would most certainly fall under the definition of “general welfare.”
Someone never read the Federalist Papers…..
Read that. Madison very clearly explains how this whole “enumerated powers” thing works.
Who’s engaging in a Straw Man now? But to answer the question, the reason the commerce clause applies here is because the bill regulates insurance, which is, in fact, interstate commerce.
Health insurance is not interstate commerce, because no insurance company is allowed to sell insurance across state lines. You’re just plain wrong here.
The Democrats decided to push for their highest-profile, most difficult piece of legislation while they had the largest advantage. It’s pragmatic political maneuvering, not some insidious first step to total Marxism.
Wait, so pursuing a course of action that would doom them to losing their majority is “pragmatic political maneuvering”?
No. You see Nick, the Democratic politicians are much more liberal then the country as a whole, and tend to be more liberal then most of their constituents. The Democrats owe their success to being seen as the cool party and the nice party. What’s cool about government controlling your life? What’s nice about being forced to buy something?
Some people really seem to think that this bill means that America is now no better than the Soviet Union. They can believe whatever they want, but I think it’s unfortunate that for some individuals hysteria has taken the place of reasoned disagreement.
That’s not a Straw Man, but it’s close. The way argument and reasoned disagreement works is that you disagree with the person you are speaking to, and you rebut their arguments. You don’t get to pick random blog comments or FB posts and use them as examples of Larry’s point of view or my own.
I know the default point of view for people our age is a collectivist one, wherein that one racist at a Tea Party is grounds for dismissing the whole 50,000 strong crowd. That doesn’t fly here. See how I’m quoting you? I’ve had lefty commenters tell me they couldn’t wait to throw people like me in camps, I’ve had them tell me I should be killed for owning guns. That doesn’t reflect on you, it reflects on them. You are an individual.
But this idea that we have to stop ObamaCare or were gonna turn into a wholly socialist country is different.
No. You have a problem here, an inability to realize that some people have a philosophical objection to government run medical care. Just as you have a philosophical attachment to it. This whole “liberal pretends to be pragmatist moderate” thing is really, really, really old. The idea that medical care is something people are entitled to, and that you can steal from some to give it to others is a radical philosophical position. You don’t get to just skip over the moral and ideological arguments for it. You are begging the question, assuming something you have not proved.
As for whether Obama’s a “Marxist,” maybe he is. But I can’t imagine that Marx would have promoted a plan that forced people to buy something from a private entity. How can you say that this bill is “Marxist” and then simultaneously attack it for making citizens buy something from a private company? Those two seem pretty diametrically opposed to me.
Marxism, distilled down to it’s basic principles, states that economic activity is best regulated and controlled by the state. The assumption Marx made is that wealth is not created by individuals, but by massive forces pushing on everyone, beyond anyone’s control. The Marxist view of the world is fundamentally a religious one, replacing God with History.
When liberals say “Society wants ____” they are using Marxist assumptions and phrasing. When liberals say “History is calling for ____”, it’s the same thing.
As for your belief that anything involving private companies cannot also involve Marx, well….it’s very very complicated. Marx died quite a long time ago, and his assumptions and basic vision are much more important, and have a much bigger impact then the nuts and bolts of his philosophy. The fact is though, the Dems realized the American people would not have stood for a direct gov medical system. This law will destroy the private insurance industry, it is designed to this. Then ten years from now the Dems will step forward and claim that the market has failed, much the same way a horse dies when you chop off three of its legs.
And you don’t think that comparing the passage of a healthcare bill to all the myriad horrors of the Soviet Union “shows a fundamental inability of some people to grasp historical magnitudes”?
This is America. It is a fundamentally different country then the USSR. Problem is what makes America different is that the government is supposed to not have power over us. They do now. The arbitrary power that comes with control over your health will allow them to force you into compliance with new regulations in the name of cost savings. See, when you were a child your parents made decisions for you, because they were supporting you. Once the government assumes power over healthcare they assume power over your whole life.
During the Brezhnev era of the USSR, the State got a lot smarter about its repression. They cut back on the camps and torture. Because the whole country was a prison. So if you were a dissident….you wouldn’t get your ration book in the mail that month. Or your medical quota would be curtailed. Or you’d be moved to a smaller apartment. You think that can’t happen here? You’re wrong.
Right now healthcare is rationed according to price in a mostly free market. That has its flaws, and no one denies that. Utopia means “no place”. Government healthcare leads to less health care, at a higher cost, and with a lower quality, and how good it is depends on bribing doctors and who you know. This happens in England, it happens in Japan, it happens everywhere there is government run healthcare.
No, what we’ve got here is the biggest mandate of forced capitalism in American history. The government didn’t take over the private sector, they’re forcing people to patronize the private sector. That’s quite a bit different.
You don’t know what capitalism is Nick. You’re using words you don’t know the meaning of. A free market economy is based on people choosing to conduct economic transactions. The biggest corporation in the world has no power other then run ads. They must get your consent to take your money. The government has no power other then to kill you, imprison you, or steal your wealth. Everything it does involves at least one of these acts, which when an individual does them are called murder, kidnapping, and robbery. The government is now going to force people, on pain of fines and imprisonment, and death if you dare to resist, to purchase things from businesses.
Businesses woo the girl, governments rape the girl. Now government is going to hold the girl down. The left often cries about monopolies and corporate power, but no monopoly ever existed without the government sponsoring it, and corporations have no power to coerce until the government backs them up.
It’s not Marxist, not really. It’s fascism, which is kind of like a bastard stepchild of Marxist socialism. Fruit of the poisoned tree.
We’re pissed off because these entitlement programs don’t go away. We’re pissed off because once again the Democrats have come up with an pyramid scheme that is doomed to collapse, like Social Security and Medicare. You have no idea of how to fix it, you just ignore it and throw more straws on the camel’s back.
Nick, 30% of this country does not pay taxes. Why do they get to vote themselves the wealth of others? Why must the productive support the unproductive?
You have some reading to do Nick. You’re woefully ignorant, which isn’t your fault, because the American educational system exists to turn out socialist automatons, not to produce rational thinkers.
Go read the following
Locke’s Second Treatise of Government
The Declaration of Independence
The Federalist Papers
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek
Modern Times by Paul Johnson
You should then read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.