View Poll Results: Should the government be able to regulate this market in advance as stated below?

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 12.50%
  • No

    19 79.17%
  • Other

    2 8.33%
Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 167

Thread: Mandated Burial Plot

  1. #101
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    I'll ask you again here, can you show us where in the Constitution federal government has the power to force people to purchase from private industry?
    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Interstate commerce clause.
    The constitution grants congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states. To those who agreed to and ratified the compact, the word regulate meant "to make regular, to cause to function properly". The power was included in the constitution because under the articles states were erecting trade barriers, such as tariffs and quotas. The intention was to create a free-trade zone among the several states, and congress was given the power to ensure that this occurred, that commerce among the states functioned properly.

    So, no, I see nothing in the constitution that would grant the federal government power beyond ensuring that trade among the state is kept regular. This would not include forcing individuals to purchase health insurance, or anything else, for that matter.

  2. #102
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    Is there some reason why there must be an amendment every so often that appeases you in order for things to be 'right'?
    Yes. Because the world changes, circumstances change, and political systems must change too.

    That makes no sense to me. When things need fixing you fix them, when they don't, you don't mess with them.
    The only reason things "don't need fixing" for the most part (in terms of lots of new constitutional amendments) is precisely BECAUSE we don't follow an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. We practically never have, in the entire history of our nation...certainly not since 1803, when we had the Louisiana Purchase and Marbury v Madison. So if an originalist approach has never been used in the United States, why are you so sure that it would work well NOW, over 200 years after the establishment of the Constitution and 92 years since the last major change?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #103
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Yes. Because the world changes, circumstances change, and political systems must change too.
    I believe it is because you 'want' change. Not because any in particular is needed.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  4. #104
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    The constitution grants congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states. To those who agreed to and ratified the compact, the word regulate meant "to make regular, to cause to function properly".
    It really doesn't matter that much to me what those who agreed to and ratified the Constitution intended. Today, the interstate commerce clause gives Congress much broader powers than that.

    The power was included in the constitution because under the articles states were erecting trade barriers, such as tariffs and quotas. The intention was to create a free-trade zone among the several states, and congress was given the power to ensure that this occurred, that commerce among the states functioned properly.
    Commerce among the states, as it applies to health care, cannot function properly in the absence of a national health care policy. For one specific example, the states that attempt to craft workable solutions to their own health care problems (e.g. Massachusetts) run the risk of becoming magnets for uninsured people from other states, which is one example of why national coordination makes sense. This is exactly why I have a problem with "originalism" as a constitutional doctrine; the Founding Fathers could never have fathomed large numbers of people moving from one state to another based on their economies or political policies...most people lived their whole lives without traveling more than 30 miles from their homes when the Constitution was written. The size and scope of interstate commerce has expanded to truly unimaginable proportions since then.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-31-12 at 03:56 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #105
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It really doesn't matter that much to me what those who agreed to and ratified the Constitution intended. Today, the interstate commerce clause gives Congress much broader powers than that.
    Because of the redefining of words.

    Yet again the wrong way to accomplish change.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  6. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It really doesn't matter that much to me what those who agreed to and ratified the Constitution intended. Today, the interstate commerce clause gives Congress much broader powers than that.
    No, it gives congress the power to regulate (that is, to make regular) commerce among the states, same as it did when the ratifiers agreed to the deal. If you wish to change that, then the appropriate methods is through the amendment process.

  7. #107
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    No, it gives congress the power to regulate (that is, to make regular) commerce among the states, same as it did when the ratifiers agreed to the deal.
    Already explained why a national health care policy DOES ensure that commerce between the states functions properly in post #104.

    If you wish to change that, then the appropriate methods is through the amendment process.
    Already explained why that doesn't work in post #84.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #108
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,359

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Well, do we see conservatives saying they don't want their tax dollars going for burial plots (which they do)? One reason it wasn't include is because the cost for this is not as large a drain. And cheaper alternatives are more readily available. Here I could even be buried in my backyard. The problem is not as large, and the cost to others not as significant. So this difference is important.

    that said, should the problem ever reach the level of cost and harm to others that lack of health care does, yes the government can and should be able to. And like with health care, to not do so would mean either letting people die untreated (as with health care) or stack up outside hoping someone will bury them (as with death).

    What exactly is the "cost to others" for people not being insured. What percent of our annual $2.7 trillion health care bill does this cost represent?

  9. #109
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,359

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It really doesn't matter that much to me what those who agreed to and ratified the Constitution intended. Today, the interstate commerce clause gives Congress much broader powers than that.



    Commerce among the states, as it applies to health care, cannot function properly in the absence of a national health care policy. For one specific example, the states that attempt to craft workable solutions to their own health care problems (e.g. Massachusetts) run the risk of becoming magnets for uninsured people from other states, which is one example of why national coordination makes sense. This is exactly why I have a problem with "originalism" as a constitutional doctrine; the Founding Fathers could never have fathomed large numbers of people moving from one state to another based on their economies or political policies...most people lived their whole lives without traveling more than 30 miles from their homes when the Constitution was written. The size and scope of interstate commerce has expanded to truly unimaginable proportions since then.

    I am not a lawyer. So perhaps you could explain why the commerce clause is even included in this discussion. To the best of my knowledge this law did not change the barriers to interstate insurance, nor does it provide some sort consistent pricing between states.

  10. #110
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,985

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    I agree with the analogy. The government should not force people to buy private insurance or pay fines. With medicine today if you have an emergency no healthcare facility can turn you down. In a free market society and a capitalist healthcare model if people chose not to buy insurance then that is their choice to make. They can reap the consequences of that when they want a procedure done and will have to pay 100% out of pocket for it, but then again they save hundreds of dollars each month not buying health insurance. With our current healthcare model I think an individual mandate is wrong and removes someone's personal choice to plan out their healthcare decisions. I know some people who chose to not pay for insurance and put money into a medical savings account or another type of account in case there is an emergency. I know others (people my age specifically) who are healthy and just don't see the need for health insurance.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •