By your own standard we are not. We could choose not to work…
No.
Yes. Or boycotting wheat.
The point I’m making is that Congress has the reach to regulate personal wheat growing, under the theory that because you grow and use your wheat yourself, you are NOT buying wheat in interstate commerce. That is manifestly “inactivity.”
How is it relevant that he could have avoided the problem of regulation by not using any wheat, period? How does that affect the analysis?
Until now. Because there’s not one word of the Wickard decision that distinguishes Congress’ power over wheat from anything else by asking how necessary it is for life.
I still think you are looking at Wickard from the wrong direction. Filburn produced a product that was subject to regulation under the commerce clause. The decision did not mandate that all individuals purchase X amount of wheat in order to produce the desired market effect. In the current case it is the insurance companies that produce the product and they ARE subject to regulation under the commerce clause. Not so for the individual who chooses NOT to participate in the health insurance market.
Then my post wasn’t addressed to you
The difference is, liberals are usually right. There’s no equivalence here, don’t try to pretend that just because one side does it then the other side does it too and they are equally wrong. Liberals favor progress. Progress is initially opposed by most people by definition, so it becomes necessary to use the power of judges and the legislators to impose measures that haven’t exactly gotten voted on. Gay marriage is one such issue, one of many. Its no surprise that pretty much every ballot measure voted on by the people have failed, but it is still constituationally correct, as the more learned judges and legislators have proven in courts time and time again. Eventually, the public will accept it, but until then it needs to be imposed.
They can sue. They will probably lose, but it doesn’t change the fact that health is a right (I didn’t say health care, just health).
Sure, they are just the loudest, most powerful faction :rolleyes:
Is this a joke? A dictator would say fuck the public ALL the time, not just some of the time. Was Lincoln a dictator for unilaterally freeing the slaves? Sometimes, the public is driven by fear and propaganda. Those of us who are factually and literally better than that need to tell them to fuck off and impose the law. I don’t give a shit how “bad” that sounds, it only sounds bad because the typical conservative will resort to fearmongering and insults first without addressing the point of the argument. Imposing the law isn’t dictatorial at all if the law is correct and morally right, you might as say murderers are freedom fighters for opposing a law set by the evil government :rolleyes:
Again, typical conservative thinking. Nobody’s telling you to offer a service. If you don’t like it, quit offering it, and let the government provide it. But you conservatives oppose that too for some reason
Your opinion means nothing. This has already been reasoned and decided years ago. You’re breathing, you’re forced to pay taxes, buy food, etc. Don’t like it? Too bad, health care will soon be of the same standard!
So, there was really no “mandate” that he spend one dollar on wheat. He was able to go through life without spending on cent on wheat or anything having to do with the wheat market.
It’s relevant as far as it is used as a comparison for the insurance mandate. The wheat “mandate” seems to me to be more like the mandate to purchase auto insurance. You can choose to not buy a car; you can choose to not consume, grow, or use wheat and not have to pay anyone a dime for those things. So, when I ask the question, “what is the list of products that the government mandates we buy?”. The answer is “nothing”.
Now, the government can and does force us to spend our money on a whole host of things, via our taxes. Which I am not questioning at all, just to be clear.
Okay. So you do agree that this is a first. If it stands, how much would you like to wager that it won’t be the last? 
False on all accounts. I can go through life paying zero taxes. Just go ask the next homeless guy you see. I can grow my own food. As it should be.
And I don’t like it, so I can voice my opinion, which may sway others and cause a groundswell which will nudge the government WE elect via our opinions (votes) to craft laws we the people actually favor.
But, hey, don’t take my word for it. Feel free to peek you nose into a seventh grade civics book.
You two work it out…
You don’t seem to have a firm grasp of how a dictatorship works. You seem to have no idea about Lincoln and slavery. Typical…yet you probably consider yourself one of the “betters” who should decide how the rest of us live our lives.
How, pray tell, will the government provide this right? Somebody has got to do it. The only way the government can provide a service that people don’t want to provide is to force them to provide the service. Think.
So here’s the problem: when you announce that the government will flout the will of the people is pursuit of a cause that is correct and morally right, you open the door to the next set of guys in charge doign the same thing, only on an issue that they claim is morally right… when you may not agree.
If enough of my guys get back in power, we can use your precedent to declare that unborn children have a right to life, regardless of what the stupid public might think.
For this reason, I believe it’s foolish to tie ourselves to a system whose operational control is simply, “What the guys in charge believe is correct and morally right.”
The homeless guy doesn’t have to buy health care either, what’s your point?
Thanks for the straw man though, I was wondering when you would start with the “I can voice my opinion, you can’t silence me, its my right!” I might tell you to point out where I said you weren’t allowed to voice it. I was simply mocking your attempt to make it into some kind of issue by claiming I said it. I still mock it, your opinion means nothing. Your beliefs on this is factually wrong. Claim the contrary all you want, but what you believe doesn’t jive with the law as it is written
Says the guy who claimed it was dictatorial to impose law, the imposition of which was done by legally elected officials and the law having since been upheld many times. Yeah, you keep working on those comebacks :rolleyes: 
Most people want the service. Most people are just too stupid and fell into the conservative trap about all this shit on death panels.
And second, WTF are you joking? Serious question, are you fucking around here? How does a government provide a service people don’t want to provide? Hey, tell me how the government provides military defense? They build an army. How do they provide mail delivery, there’s the post office. I’m sure if suddenly all private insurance companies spontaenously quit tomorrow, Obama will create a department of health care or something and sell health care that the government will insure. God damn it, please tell me you are joking if you cannot grasp how that works, I have a low opinion of humanity already and I don’t need you to make it worse
I don’t care. The alternative is the government stands by and does nothing, which is even worse
And I fully expect you guys to do that. Don’t expect me to believe that health care is the impetus upon which conservatives are using as the straw that broke the camel’s back. When you guys get in power, I fully expect some crazy shit. Hell, despite all the carping about jobs and the economy, after the 2010 elections there was apparently a record number of anti-abortion bills passed by state legislatures. So yeah, this is a game of back and forth. You people will try to pass whatever you can get away with when you’re in power, and my people will do the same
Besides, don’t think that nobody knows what conservatives are doing, its as plain as day. The only reason you do not pass a law that erases Roe v. Wade is because you can’t, not because you are holding back out of some respect for the Constitution.
Unless of course, they are correct.
Listen, I’m not arguing with you Bricker. This isn’t a debate where we both declare the merits of the law from our interpretation and wait for public opinion to turn our way. Obama has the right to do this. AND its morally right. People who disagree with that are factually wrong. Its as wrong as saying slavery is still ok. The problem is that conservatives refuse to see it
Seriously, just buy your god damn health insurance
I already have health insurance. And I agree the law is constitutional.
I just think it’s a bad idea.
And how do they pay for those things?
Go back and read what I wrote and what I was responding to instead of responding to what you want me to say.
Again, why not respond to what I actually wrote. I realize that you are out of your depth here. I also realize there are rational arguments against what I believe…but you really aren’t addressing my points or making any rational argument at all. All you seem to have is “fuck the people…I’m right…the people are too stooped!”
Please dial it back a bit. This is a personal comment and not a discussion of the argument.
Here’s the thing. One of my more liberal views is that I agree with Obama on what he was trying to accomplish with health care.
But like everything else this guy touches, he did more damage than good.
Let’s recap- America spends more money on Health Care than any other nation in the world. About 1/6 of our GDP But let’s look at what we have for that.
[ul]
Highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world.
Lowest life expectancy in the industrialized world
62% of bankruptcies are linked to medical expenses. Of those, 75% had insurance when the crisis started.
1 out of 6 has no coverage. another 20 million have inadequate coverage.
[/ul]
So, really, a good argument could be made for adopting or moving towards a Canada like system. Unfortunately, Obama didn’t make that argument. He let Congress thrash around pointlessly. He let Sarah Palin spew out some nonsense about “Death Panels” coming for Trig. He let characters like Bayh and Nelson carve out deals to get their vote. (Seriously, do you see Bill Clinton doing something like that?)
And when the voters grumbled, he ran roughshod over them with back room deals.
Now, Republican intrangisense has its share of the blame, no doubt. But it wasn’t like he was out there really fighting for a better system. Bill Clinton would have brought out every sick kid who got turned down due to a pre-existing condition until the Republicans cried uncle.
The individual Mandate getting overturned would essentially destroy private insurance. Getting rid of “pre-existing condition” rejections in exchange for 100% mandetory coverage was the only way to keep the current system working. Get rid of the latter half of that, people won’t buy insurance until they get sick. It’s like buying car insurance after you have an accident.
I don’t disagree with everything you said, RR, but you have to at least acknowledge that Bill Clinton didn’t get his health-care proposal passed, even with majorities in both houses of Congress.
That doesn’t strike you as personal? Either YogSosoth is deliberately responding to points that I did not make or he doesn’t understand what I am saying.
Explain please. You think its a bad idea because of how we’re doing it or just that health shouldn’t be seen as a basic right to the degree that we all need to get health insurance?
How does the government pay for anything? Is this a rhetorical question? :rolleyes:
I don’t disagree that Obama’s methods wasn’t to my liking, but I disagree that he “let” Palin or anyone do anything. How was he going to stop her from opening her stupid mouth? He could get in front of the cameras everyday and make speeches, but I think that would have just gotten old. This health care fight took him the better part of his first 2 years and in the end, it was still right down to the wire. Obama couldn’t go Super Liberal when pushing it because then he would never have gotten enough of the Blue Dog Dems to vote for it, the margin was that close
I don’t agree that health care is a basic right, such that it should be funded by the government for you if you can’t pay for it.