Filibusters and Reconciliation

[AvalonXQ]

why should health-care be a state and not a federal issue?

it seems to me that only the Federal government has the power and resources to deal with such a monster. wouldn't u agree?

Not at all.
A "monster" is what the big government folks want to turn it into. We need the government to move out of the way, not jump in!

 

[CORed]

On Meet the Press this morning, Cantor said the Republicans are in favor of the states adopting programs to help those 30 million uninsured get insurance.

Is there any meaningful way, coming from a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, that this is something other than an admission that the Republican Party is in favor of doing nothing at the national level?

Or is Cantor running for office in his state legislature now?

The Republicans' claim that they have better ideas for health care would have some credibility if they had actually made any the slightest effort to pass anything at all during the six years they controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. As it stands, they would have more credibililty defending the status quo. As bad as the status quo is, I'm not at all convinced that the Dems program won't make matters worse.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not at all.
A "monster" is what the big government folks want to turn it into. We need the government to move out of the way, not jump in!

We've got a population of some 300 million, and an annual GDP of nearly $14 trillion. Our constitution gives our federal government the authority to raise revenue and spend it on defense and the welfare of the people.

Given these facts, if you don't like a "big" government, you're in the wrong country. No one is turning anything into a big government. (You are away of the deficits run during the Bush administration, aren't you?)

I for one would not like to go back to an era of "small government" (like pre-New Deal or the Gilded Age). I think we should move forward with healthcare reform in an effort to have universal access to healthcare.

 

[leftysergeant]

How is it like that?
I said some issues are state, not federal issues, and I believe health care is an example.
How does that imply that I think civil rights is another example?

Health care insurance is an inter-state business. Federal. End of discussion.

 

[Thunder]

Not at all.
A "monster" is what the big government folks want to turn it into. We need the government to move out of the way, not jump in!

can u give us an example of when govt. left something major to the states, and all worked out fine?

 

[Ziggurat]

Health care insurance is an inter-state business. Federal. End of discussion.

Then why are most insurance regulations performed at the state level? Why are the rules and regulations for insurance so varied from state to state, instead of consistent across state lines? And why are Democrats opposed to allowing competition across state lines, like Republicans have asked for? I'd like for insurance to be an interstate business, but right now it isn't treated like one. Oh, and if you socialize health insurance? It won't be a business at all.

 

[Thunder]

Then why are most insurance regulations performed at the state level? Why are the rules and regulations for insurance so varied from state to state, instead of consistent across state lines? .

we have many laws that vary from state to state. gun laws, taxes, etc.

that doesn't mean the Federal govt. can't get involved.

 

[AvalonXQ]

can u give us an example of when govt. left something major to the states, and all worked out fine?

Criminal law.

 

[leftysergeant]

And why are Democrats opposed to allowing competition across state lines, like Republicans have asked for? I'd like for insurance to be an interstate business, but right now it isn't treated like one.

Which means that states are free to kiss corporate butts to draw corporate headquarters to the states. Sometimes, that involves letting the corporations screw consumers. That's why it should all be federally regulated, if it is to continue operating as a for profit business.

Oh, and if you socialize health insurance? It won't be a business at all.

I'm cool with that. The money could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Ziggurat]

it seems to me that only the Federal government has the power and resources to deal with such a monster. wouldn't u agree?

Nothing in the constitution indicates that the federal government has more power to create health insurance plans than states do. Quite the reverse, in fact: since the constitution is silent on the matter of providing health care, the default position should be that the power properly belongs to individual states. As for who has the resources, well, that's simply a matter of where the taxes for such a program would come from. And there's no reason that it must come from federal taxes rather than state taxes: both draw money from the same taxpayers. Taxes will increase if the feds start providing universal health insurance, and they will increase if the states start providing it. It will make little difference to taxpayers if that increase shows up on their federal returns or their state returns.

 

[leftysergeant]

Criminal law.

Except in some of the red neck states between the Civil War and 1964.

 

[Thunder]

Criminal law.

tell that to a black man in Mississippi.

 

[Ziggurat]

we have many laws that vary from state to state. gun laws, taxes, etc.

that doesn't mean the Federal govt. can't get involved.

Actually, it often does. But that's not the point. The point is that right now, the federal government isn't nearly as involved as the states.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which means that states are free to kiss corporate butts to draw corporate headquarters to the states. Sometimes, that involves letting the corporations screw consumers.

And if insurance regulations were federalized as you want it to be, insurance companies could operate across state lines under the same rules. So how would the location of corporate headquarters make any difference to consumers? It wouldn't. It might make some difference to shareholders, but that's a different issue.

That's why it should all be federally regulated, if it is to continue operating as a for profit business.

And if it's federally regulated, is there any reason not to allow competition across state lines? You suggested one, but it's nonsense under such a scenario.

 

[leftysergeant]

And if insurance regulations were federalized as you want it to be, insurance companies could operate across state lines under the same rules. So how would the location of corporate headquarters make any difference to consumers? It wouldn't. It might make some difference to shareholders, but that's a different issue.

If it is federally-regulated, there would be no incentive for states to pass more lax regulations just to attract the businesses. That is why I want it regulated federally, rather than by the states. What matters most is that, whatever changes are made, it works to the ecconomic advantage of consumers rather than investors.

You might have picked up some clues that I seem not to give a rat's about investors. I will not deny that. There is no reason that anyone should be allowed to invest in my vulnerability.

 

[Ziggurat]

If it is federally-regulated, there would be no incentive for states to pass more lax regulations just to attract the businesses.

Congratulations, you've just realized that the Republican idea of allowing competition across state boundaries actually makes sense.

What matters most is that, whatever changes are made, it works to the ecconomic advantage of consumers rather than investors.

Then increased competition is exactly what you should be looking for. Investors hate competition, consumers love it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually, it often does. But that's not the point. The point is that right now, the federal government isn't nearly as involved as the states.

Exactly.

So again going back to what Cantor said, there is no difference between saying "Let's leave it up to the states" and saying, "Let's do nothing at all and keep things at the status quo"--especially from the point of view of the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Congratulations, you've just realized that the Republican idea of allowing competition across state boundaries actually makes sense.

When did the Republicans come up with this idea? Right after the Democrats pushed for healthcare reform bills that included just such measures (notably removing the anti-trust exemption the insurance industry enjoys) which Republicans voted against?


I'm no fan of the Democrats, but they have definitely taken the lead on this issue. To claim it as a Republican idea is preposterous. Why didn't they do anything in that direction when they controlled Congress?

 

[AvalonXQ]

When did the Republicans come up with this idea? Right after the Democrats pushed for healthcare reform bills that included just such measures (notably removing the anti-trust exemption the insurance industry enjoys) which Republicans voted against?

Interesting claim. Do you have evidence to back up your timeline?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm no fan of the Democrats, but they have definitely taken the lead on this issue. To claim it as a Republican idea is preposterous.

Then why am I only hearing Republicans advocating it? If the Democrats want it too, then why aren't they pushing that as a talking point? I can only conclude that they don't want ownership of the idea, even if they like it.

Why didn't they do anything in that direction when they controlled Congress?

Because they're idiots who bought into soft statism while in power and are only rediscovering free market principles now that they're out of power. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not siding with Republicans because I think they're intrinsically any better, I'm siding with them because I think right now they're advocating a better approach than the Democrats.