Insurance mandate opens door for solutions to other problems

[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")

So your response to the question what part of the Constitution does this bill violate has consistently been to ignore the question and ask if the person asking acknowledges that there is a legitimate debate among constitutional scholars on this issue.

At least the two of us have unequivocally answered your question. Why won't you answer ours?

I know. . .google is my friend (but not yours). Gonna link to another debunking of a chain letter?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What about shifting goalposts, Mhaze?

Do you think the bill is unconstitutional? If so, on what grounds?

I still don't acknowledge that there is a legitimate debate on the issue, but even if there were, it doesn't make your case for you.

 

[mhaze]

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.

Nonsense. Including other law by referencing the code section makes it part and parcel of the rule. As I showed in my example about skin color. So you can't do a word search in the text, find not a reference to jailtime, and claim the bill does not include it.

Actually you have no point. You are trying to create on in which you claim that the pre existence of a penalty means that a new law does not create a penalty. Of course it does. Take the reverse, some years ago numerous states made marihuana illegal and a felony. Other sections of code indicated what happened to someone with a felony. Later, states changed this to a misdemenor, and again for brevity, other sections of code reference what that means.

By your logic, marihuana did not result in jail time, and no good occured when it was reduced to a misdemenor, since it never resulted in jail time. This is utter nonsense, a third grader would not pass a test talking like this.

 

[mhaze]

What about shifting goalposts, Mhaze?

Do you think the bill is unconstitutional? If so, on what grounds?

I still don't acknowledge that there is a legitimate debate on the issue, but even if there were, it doesn't make your case for you.

There are no shifting goalposts, I have been utterly consistent in simply asking you if there was a constitutional debate on the issue. And equally consistent in not taking your (falsely framed) challenge from ignorance.

To be clear: Just as I said I don't care what you think, neither do I think it to be of any importance what I think on the matter.

I've also been consistent in indicating that if you did not think there was a constitutinal debate on the matter, then we actually have nothing to discuss, since you would be in a state of denial.

Shall we move on, then?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There are no shifting goalposts, I have been utterly consistent in simply asking you if there was a constitutional debate on the issue. And equally consistent in not taking your (falsely framed) challenge from ignorance.

To be clear: Just as I said I don't care what you think, neither do I think it to be of any importance what I think on the matter.

I've also been consistent in indicating that if you did not think there was a constitutinal debate on the matter, then we actually have nothing to discuss, since you would be in a state of denial.

Shall we move on, then?

Yep--since you are unable to substantiate in any way whatsoever the position that the bill is unconstitutional or even that there is a legitimate debate among constitutional scholars on that question.

You tried being evasive, then repeating "Google is your friend", then finally linking to a factcheck.org article that debunks a chain-letter e-mail made by a purported "retired attorney" that repeats a bunch of right-wing nonsense around the claim that the bill is unconstitutional.

If that's all you've got, then we're done.

 

[mhaze]

Yep--since you are unable to substantiate in any way whatsoever the position that the bill is unconstitutional or even that there is a legitimate debate among constitutional scholars on that question.

You tried being evasive, then repeating "Google is your friend", then finally linking to a factcheck.org article that debunks a chain-letter e-mail made by a purported "retired attorney" that repeats a bunch of right-wing nonsense around the claim that the bill is unconstitutional.

If that's all you've got, then we're done.

Mhaze: Joe, are there several political parties in the US?
JoetheJuggler: No, there is only one real party, the Democratic party. there are some other right wing nonsense they don't count.
Mhaze: Okay, Joe. Suuuurrreeee. See ya later.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Mhaze: Joe, are there several political parties in the US?
JoetheJuggler: No, there is only one real party, the Democratic party. there are some other right wing nonsense they don't count.
Mhaze: Okay, Joe. Suuuurrreeee. See ya later.

Liar. I never said any such a thing.

ETA: Acting out an imagined argument where you supply words for your opponent is a pretty sure sign that you're arguing against a straw man.

 

[mhaze]

Aw, be reasonable. It clearly is poking fun at an attitude you have that the constitutional issue doesn't exist by drawing an analogy. If you took it literally, I apologize.

 

[3point14]

I have no dog in this fight at all, but it does seem to me that stating that a piece of legislation is unconstitutional, and then being unable to point to the bit in the constitution that it violates makes your argument pretty weak. Most of the arguments of this nature I read have a statement in them somehere that says:

"Yes, it violates article x, section y, because..."

I haven't seen that, I would have thought it was necessary if your premise is "This is unconstitutional"?

Oh, and why does someone have to accept that there is "a debate among constitutional scholars on the issue" for you to debate them. I don't think there's any serious scholarly debate concerning the world being 6000 years old and having been made in a week, but I'll still debate a creationist.

 

[mhaze]

I have no dog in this fight at all, but it does seem to me that stating that a piece of legislation is unconstitutional, and then being unable to point to the bit in the constitution that it violates makes your argument pretty weak. Most of the arguments of this nature I read have a statement in them somehere that says:

"Yes, it violates article x, section y, because..."

I haven't seen that, I would have thought it was necessary if your premise is "This is unconstitutional"?

Oh, and why does someone have to accept that there is "a debate among constitutional scholars on the issue" for you to debate them.....

You mean to ask, then, why would I choose to not discuss the constitutionality of the health care legislation with someone who claimed that THERE WAS NOT AN ONGOING CONVERSATION WITH EXISTING CONTENT SUCH AS:

arguments of this nature I read have a statement in them somehere that says:

"Yes, it violates article x, section y, because..."

Because such an attitude on the part of someone indicates a state of denial or obfuscation of the facts, I wouldn't care to debate with them. It would be no different than a high school science teacher choosing not to answer the raised hand, during the course of a discussion on evolution,
of someone who denied the existence of the subject.

Nonwithstanding, I've provided a couple of very simple, introductory links to the matter.

 

[TriskettheKid]

JoeTheJuggler:

Based on mhaze's link to Judge Napolitano's conversation with Rep. Clyburn, I think I finally found something that is the basis of this whole thing. Here is a link to an op-ed piece written by Napolitano after the conversation with Clyburn:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548.html

What a weak argument.

I mean, this is supposed to be evidence of a debate?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

JoeTheJuggler:

Based on mhaze's link to Judge Napolitano's conversation with Rep. Clyburn, I think I finally found something that is the basis of this whole thing. Here is a link to an op-ed piece written by Napolitano after the conversation with Clyburn:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548.html

What a weak argument.

I mean, this is supposed to be evidence of a debate?

The closest I see to a legal argument is that Napolitano disagrees with a 1942 decision that expanded the interpretation of the Commerce Clause and is now well established law.

Nope--no sign of a debate over the constitutionality of the House healthcare reform bill.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Mhaze: Joe, are there several political parties in the US?
JoetheJuggler: No, there is only one real party, the Democratic party. there are some other right wing nonsense they don't count.
Mhaze: Okay, Joe. Suuuurrreeee. See ya later.

Aw, be reasonable. It clearly is poking fun at an attitude you have that the constitutional issue doesn't exist by drawing an analogy. If you took it literally, I apologize.

Be reasonable? You accused me of saying something I didn't even remotely say so that you could carry on an imaginary argument against that statement.

I don't see anything even bordering on humor. It's just a sleazy and inaccurate rhetorical device.

And I reject your conditional apology--"If you took it literally, I apologize"--since it only serves to blame me for your insulting and false statement.

Back to the topic, still no evidence of a constitutional case against the House healthcare bill or even of a legitimate debate among constitutional scholars on the issue.

Got any more chain-letter e-mails to support your case?

 

[Almo]

It seems to me that this whole mandated insurance thing is because the US is too afraid to go with real universal healthcare. I just got out of a 9-day stay in a Canadian hospital for serious pneumonia in both lungs. When they discharged me, I walked out, no worry about paying anything. Then I thought to myself, "You know, it's hard to complain about higher taxes when I just got all those x-rays and blood tests and doctor visits and a hospital stay and medicine without having to pay out of pocket." The quality of care I received seemed very good. My only complaint was that it was unpleasant sharing a hospital room with 3 other people. But I didn't think that seriously impacted my care.

I've had major surgery in the US (removed a giant cell tumor from my knee), been for an MRI in the UK, and had this pneumonia treatment in Canada. I'm just not afraid of universal healthcare, and I've seen both systems from the inside. Best of all, if I'm sick with something, I go to the doctor much sooner here than I would in the US since I don't pay for GP visits.

I also know what my sister is going through in the US with her kids' health. I won't go into detail, but her family remains broke because of the high cost of health insurance combined with a high deductible. Something has to be done in the US about healthcare. It's just not working very well, in my opinion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, how about an honest answer to this question, mhaze: do you think the House healthcare reform bill is unconstitutional?

Surely you have an opinion on this issue. I don't believe for a minute that you are only interested in it because you think there is a debate among scholars while you hold no opinion at all.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It seems to me that this whole mandated insurance thing is because the US is too afraid to go with real universal healthcare.

I agree, and I've said so all along. A single payer system financed by taxes makes much more sense.

Unfortunately, the people who think this health insurance reform bill is unconstitutional tend to think that a single payer system would be even worse (un-American, socialist, or whatever).

 

[mhaze]

It seems to me that this whole mandated insurance thing is because the US is too afraid to go with real universal healthcare....

Nonsense. Your consitution is quite different from ours. As just one example we have a right to guns.

Be reasonable? You accused me of saying something I didn't even remotely say so that you could carry on an imaginary argument against that statement.

I don't see anything even bordering on humor. It's just a sleazy and inaccurate rhetorical device.....

Fine, be unreasonable.

Also, how about an honest answer to this question, mhaze: do you think the House healthcare reform bill is unconstitutional?

Surely you have an opinion on this issue. I don't believe for a minute that you are only interested in it because you think there is a debate among scholars while you hold no opinion at all.

I'm sure you can comprehend why it would be irrelevant to me what someone thought who argued from a position of ignorance. And given that I've already stated that your views were irrelevant (as were mine) it is irrelevant what you think in your own mind about my motives. Two attempts there to change the subject. But I thought we'd agreed to not discuss this entire matter because you deny it exists?

Why do you continue, then?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm sure you can comprehend why it would be irrelevant to me what someone thought who argued from a position of ignorance.

You keep claiming that my position is one of ignorance, but it isn't. If someone were to challenge the constitutionality of a law that Congress passed, the burden is on that person to show a constitutional problem. Until someone does that, I don't have to prove anything.

These vague (and legally incorrect) notions that it's not within the powers of Congress to pass a law like this, or jail people for not paying a fine or that it's "socialist" do not comprise anything like a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the bill.

I can't possibly prove that there is no constitutional challenge. I can only refute anything that is offered as such a challenge. My failure to prove that no challenge is possible is not a position of ignorance.

Your position is analogous to arguing, "You can't prove that there are no green swans, even though I can't show you even one example of a green swan." My only response is that I won't believe a green swan exists until you provide evidence of the existence of a green swan. You're correct that I can't prove they don't exist somewhere.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Do you think someone disagreeing with the decision in Wickard vs. Filburn (1942) comprises a legitimate debate on the constitutionality of the House healthcare bill?

 

[Almo]

Nonsense. Your consitution is quite different from ours. As just one example we have a right to guns.

Not my consitution: I'm a US citizen. I live in Canada because it's where the work is. And Canadians have plenty of guns. 90 guns per 100 in US, 30 per 100 in Canada. Not as many but still a lot.