Insurance mandate opens door for solutions to other problems

[mhaze]

Rather than doing anything productive, I just googled "House healthcare reform bill constitutionality"......So again, I do not acknowledge that there is a serious debate among constitutional scholars....

Okay, let's start with good old factcheck, one of the first things that comes up for me in google. (Hey, beats me, maybe google doesn't like you?)

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/health-care-overhaul-constitutional/

 

[mhaze]

My bolding:

Can you point to the section or language in the House bill that calls for jailing people for not getting health insurance?

http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

The words "jail" and "prison" and "sentence" do not appear anywhere in the legalese version of the bill.

"Imprisoned" shows up once, in a section about confidentiality of information passed from the Social Security Commissioner to the Health Choices Commissioner.

"Fine" appears 4 times in the bill.

Again, the bill calls for a fine. That you can be jailed for not paying a fine is an issue you can take up with already-existing law.

Now this is truly amazing logic. You may consider this cleverness, but it is not.

Invoking the punitive actions of the state toward an individual pretty much says it all. That a bill draws upon previous sections of the code is obvious. When those sections are incorporated by reference, they are incorporated. The punishments described in such sections are incorporated.

Otherwise you could say in one section of law 5888 that "someone described in (section) 6812.1 was not allowed in a public restruant" and in section 6812.1 reads "persons of color, including of African or Chinese descent".

...and claim that law 5888 does not exclude or address persons of color, because the phrases did not occur therein.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Okay, let's start with good old factcheck, one of the first things that comes up for me in google. (Hey, beats me, maybe google doesn't like you?)

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/health-care-overhaul-constitutional/

Did you read this article?

ETA: The factcheck.org article is a debunking of a chain e-mail supposedly written by a retired attorney named Michael Connelly. I recommend especially reading the "kitchen sink" section of the article which debunks Connelly's repeating of a bunch of well debunked claims--rationed healthcare for seniors, free healthcare for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, forced participation in abortion by doctors, etc.

By the way, the bill Connelly is writing about is HR 3200, and not the version that actually passed, which was HR 3962.

ETA: Also, are you claiming that I falsely reported the top 5 results that come up under the search terms I entered?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Now this is truly amazing logic. You may consider this cleverness, but it is not.

I don't consider it the least bit clever. I'm merely pointing out that you are wrong when you say this bill would jail people for not getting health insurance.

And you've said this repeatedly.

 

[mhaze]

I don't consider it the least bit clever. I'm merely pointing out that you are wrong when you say this bill would jail people for not getting health insurance.

And you've said this repeatedly.

This matter I fully explained in #102. No more needs be said.

 

[mhaze]

Did you read this article?

ETA: The factcheck.org article.....

Did you note that my post started with the following phrase...

"Let's start with..."

Now do you or do you not understand that there does exist a valid constitutional question here?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Did you note that my post started with the following phrase...

"Let's start with..."

So? I cited every one of the first 5 google hits in my post of links. The rest of the first page looked to be more of the same.

ETA: Should I take your non-response to my question to mean no, you didn't read the article?

So, you claim there's a problem with the constitutionality of the bill. I asked you to say what constitutional conflict there is. Aside from "show me that Congress has the authority to do that" and cried of "it's socialism!", I have yet to hear a valid argument that the bill is unconstitutional. You have only been able to say, "Google is your friend", but we've seen the results of that.

Now do you or do you not understand that there does exist a valid constitutional question here?

I disagree that there is a valid constitutional question here.

The factcheck.org article you cited is a debunking of a chain-letter e-mail that raises a bunch of bogus arguments.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This matter I fully explained in #102. No more needs be said.

I understand your claim that the bill would let them throw people in jail for not getting insurance is no more valid than the claim that you can get thrown in jail for parking illegally.

As I said, what you seem to be arguing against, throwing people in jail for not paying a fine, is existing law and not something this bill introduces.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

and cried of "it's socialism!",

A typo, too late to edit: that should've been "and cries of . . ."

 

[TriskettheKid]

If I may be so bold:

MHaze, as I agree with JoeTheJuggler, just what part of the Constitution do you think the bill is violating?

Any specific section, or amendment?

 

[mhaze]

I understand your claim that the bill would let them throw people in jail for not getting insurance is no more valid than the claim that you can get thrown in jail for parking illegally.

As I said, what you seem to be arguing against, throwing people in jail for not paying a fine, is existing law and not something this bill introduces.

Obviously this calls for repeating my prior comment, which you must not have understood:

(LAW 5888 and 6812.1 are random numbers to show the point)

Otherwise you could say in one section of law 5888 that "someone described in (section) 6812.1 was not allowed in a public restruant" and in section 6812.1 reads "persons of color, including of African or Chinese descent".

...and claim that law 5888 does not exclude or address persons of color, because the phrases did not occur therein.

 

[mhaze]

If I may be so bold:

MHaze, as I agree with JoeTheJuggler, just what part of the Constitution do you think the bill is violating?

Any specific section, or amendment?

Given that Joe has already asked that, and that my response was for him to address whether or not he acknowledges the existence of a debate among constitutional scholars on the issue, and that he has now replied essentially in denial of the existence of such a debate...

What is your opinion, is there such a debate? (it is irrelevant to me if or who you agree with - law isn't a matter of "agreement")

 

[TriskettheKid]

Given that Joe has already asked that, and that my response was for him to address whether or not he acknowledges the existence of a debate among constitutional scholars on the issue, and that he has now replied essentially in denial of the existence of such a debate...

What is your opinion, is there such a debate? (it is irrelevant to me if or who you agree with - law isn't a matter of "agreement")

Well, the issue at hand renders your argument moot.

If you think there is a section of the Constitution that is violated by the bill, then you should let us know.

Otherwise, there is no violation, and your argument is pointless.

And no, I do not acknowledge any serious debate on the matter. Just as I don't acknowledge any debate among scientists about the validity of evolution.

And yes, law is a matter of "agreement."

 

[mhaze]

Well, the issue at hand renders your argument moot.

If you think there is a section of the Constitution that is violated by the bill, then you should let us know.

Otherwise, there is no violation, and your argument is pointless.

And no, I do not acknowledge any serious debate on the matter. Just as I don't acknowledge any debate among scientists about the validity of evolution.

And yes, law is a matter of "agreement."

Keep your blinders on, then. And no, you don't get it. You see, the way such a thing goes, is that first the general state of the dialogue in the greater community is acknowledged and understood, then arguments are presented based on some of that content.

Without that background, you (or Joe, as the case may be) essentially promotes a position of argument from ignorance. On that basis, it is not my argument that is pointless, but any response I may choose to make to those who argue from ignorance.

This is more or less equal to debating abortion, but refusing to acknowledge the history of that debate, including Roe vs. Wade. I'd likely politely refuse such a discussion, because it would only rehash poorly, arguments presented clear previously.

Nonetheless, try this on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Xcqp46A64

 

[TriskettheKid]

Keep your blinders on, then. And no, you don't get it. You see, the way such a thing goes, is that first the general state of the dialogue in the greater community is acknowledged and understood, then arguments are presented based on some of that content.

Without that background, you (or Joe, as the case may be) essentially promotes a position of argument from ignorance. On that basis, it is not my argument that is pointless, but any response I may choose to make to those who argue from ignorance.

This is more or less equal to debating abortion, but refusing to acknowledge the history of that debate, including Roe vs. Wade. I'd likely politely refuse such a discussion, because it would only rehash poorly, arguments presented clear previously.

Nonetheless, try this on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Xcqp46A64

What section is this guy referring to?

He says the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to have a Department of Education, or have Federal Healthcare.

Which section is the healthcare bill violating?

I mean, is that the basis of the argument? Maintaining people's health is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, therefore it's against the Constitution?

Is THAT the argument being made?

And, again, I do not acknowledge there is any debate here about the Constitutionality. Just talking heads doing what talking heads do.

 

[mhaze]

What section is this guy referring to?

He says the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to have a Department of Education, or have Federal Healthcare.

Which section is the healthcare bill violating?

I mean, is that the basis of the argument? Maintaining people's health is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, therefore it's against the Constitution?

Is THAT the argument being made?

And, again, I do not acknowledge there is any debate here about the Constitutionality. Just talking heads doing what talking heads do.

I'm not really sure what you don't understand, but if you do not acknowledge any debate about the Constitutionality of the national health care, then you are in denial of the part of reality of which we are discussing whether to discuss.

However in reference to your puzzling comment about talking heads, here is the background of Napolitiano which is relevant (and by the way, I purposely picked a simple and clear little verbal debate, rather than more typical long and somewhat boring legal discussion):

Judge Napolitano...For 11 years, he served as an adjunct professor of constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School, where he provided instruction in constitutional law and jurisprudence. Judge Napolitano returned to private law practice in 1995 and began television broadcasting in the same year.

If however, you acknowledge no debate about the Constitutionality, then our discussion is greatly simplfied and comes to an immediate stop, as you are in denial of reality.

Cheers!

 

[TriskettheKid]

I'm not really sure what you don't understand, but if you do not acknowledge any debate about the Constitutionality of the national health care, then you are in denial of the part of reality of which we are discussing whether to discuss.

I'm quite clear about what I am trying to understand. All it will take is a simple answer from you:

Just what part of the Constitution is being violated by this healthcare bill?

If you cannot answer this question, then I must assume that the bill, in fact, does not violate the Constitution, and thus your argument is moot.

However in reference to your puzzling comment about talking heads, here is the background of Napolitiano which is relevant:

Judge Napolitano...For 11 years, he served as an adjunct professor of constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School, where he provided instruction in constitutional law and jurisprudence. Judge Napolitano returned to private law practice in 1995 and began television broadcasting in the same year.

I'm well aware of the Honorable Judge's career at Fox News.

That is why I'm adamant that he is a talking head, and not an academic. This is a guy who's primary occupation for the past 11+ years has been talking head. Hell, Dr. Phil may be a doctor, but he's still a talking head, as his current career indicates.

So, please point me to this debate about Constitutionality. Which law journal could I find information about it in?

If however, you acknowledge no debate about the Constitutionality, then our discussion is greatly simplfied and comes to an immediate stop, as you are in denial of reality.

Cheers!

There is no debate.

Just a bunch of talking heads.

 

[mhaze]

Hmm....you may have a point.

He's not a True Scotsman....

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Obviously this calls for repeating my prior comment, which you must not have understood:

I understand your point. You're claiming that even though the House bill doesn't specify the jail, it relies on existing law to do that. My point, that you keep missing, is that what you're quibbling with is the existing law and not what's in this bill.

Since you keep repeating your point, I'll keep repeating mine: it is no more valid to say that this bill would jail people for not getting insurance than it is to say that you can jail people for illegal parking. You can't.

 

[TriskettheKid]

Hmm....you may have a point.

He's not a True Scotsman....

Uh, no.

Has he contributed anything to a law journal recently? Is he currently a professor at an accredited law school?

No? Then he is not an academic, and not an example of Constitutional scholars involved in some kind of debate that you're arguing exists among said scholars.

He is a talking head. He's been one for 10+ years.