# House passes "repeal and replace" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 4, 2017, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871 "2017-05-04T20:53:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/301 "2017-05-05T14:28:36Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Agreed, 100%. Does it bother you, or Bricker, that every other first world country on Earth does it differently, and they spend less and typically get better or as good results? In other words, are so in love with this ideological goal that you’re willing to spend more money for less? On a practical level doesn’t that bother you? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/302 "2017-05-05T14:35:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Let me illustrate by way of a companion question: > > If the goal is to catch criminals, why do we have a Fourth Amendment? > > The answer is that the goal is indeed to catch criminals, but it’s not the only goal. We also have a goal to live in a society in which we are free from unreasonable searches. Sometimes, those two goals are in tension with one another. I seems to me that you’re equating risk of unreasonable searches with the risk of unreasonable taxes. I don’t agree that the two are equivalent because I don’t see it as unreasonable that in a more just society, the onus is on everyone to contribute to the welfare of everyone in that society. Particularly when one holds the simultaneous position that under a constitutional amendment, UHC with it’s associated tax burden would be acceptable. > [@Bricker](#): > > Now, with that in mind: if the goals are better healthcare for all, what compels your change in position if it’s UHC mandated by a constitutional amendment vs. an ACA type vehicle? > > The answer is that the goal indeed is better healthcare for all, but it’s not the only goal. We also have a goal to apply the framework of federalism to our jointly sovereign government. You see it as a matter of law. I see it as a matter of scale. If it’s okay for Massachusetts, or Vermont, or California (for example), to invoke a UHC system for its constituents, why is it not okay for the entire country? In fact, doing so, serves to divide the country and restrict freedom of movement for its citizens to have such a difference in essential services offered from state to state. > [@Bricker](#): > > This is especially important because you seem genuinely puzzled about the issue, as evidenced by your first question, “Can you help me understand why it’s proper for State level but not Federal level?” > > The answer to that question is: I don’t know, but I will try. To start, I’d like to ask you if you understand that the authority the federal government has is different in several key ways from the authority states have. The federal government has only enumerated powers, while the states have plenary legislative powers. > > Can I ask if you understand that concept? Could you explain it to someone else, if asked? I understand the concept. I also think it’s archaic. Perhaps because I’m a federalist and perhaps because I think state laws serve to divide the country in ways that don’t serve its citizens all that well in many important ways. i.e. UHC. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/303 "2017-05-05T14:39:06Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I understand the concept. I also think it’s archaic. Perhaps because I’m a federalist and perhaps because I think state laws serve to divide the country in ways that don’t serve its citizens all that well in many important ways. i.e. UHC. Can you briefly explain your understanding of it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/304 "2017-05-05T14:42:20Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > ISTM that, formation of public policy aside, Christian commands to do charity can be extrapolated to Christian commands to be motivated by a benevolent (from the Latin for “to desire good”) and beneficent (from the Latin for “to do good”) spirit towards all, particularly the less well-off. Under this rubric, it’s not hard to expect _support_ for public policies that are “charitable” in character. But public policy is not “aside.” It’s exactly what’s under discussion. You’re not moved if I point to the deaths of the unborn and ask for charity; you are perfectly comfortable in seeing abortion continue – presumably because you believe that other important goals are being served. Right? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/305 "2017-05-05T14:58:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can you briefly explain your understanding of it? Federal enumerated powers as per Article I, Section 8 in the U.S. Constitution. Plenary state power is the authority of each state to make its own laws not subject to federal gov’t review. Can we move on, or do you want to continue to talk down to me? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/306 "2017-05-05T15:01:57Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Federal enumerated powers as per Article I, Section 8 in the U.S. Constitution. > > Plenary state power is the authority of each state to make its own laws not subject to federal gov’t review. > > Can we move on, or do you want to continue to talk down to me? Not quite. State laws can be subject to federal review. Think of it this way: The Feds can only do that which they are explicitly authorized to do. The States can do anything they are not explicitly forbidden to do. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/307 "2017-05-05T15:05:53Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not quite. State laws can be subject to federal review. > > Think of it this way: > > The Feds can only do that which they are explicitly authorized to do. > > The States can do anything they are not explicitly forbidden to do. Yeah, I had an “except when they are” caveat but removed it for simplicity. I guess I should have left it in. Now Prof. **Bricker** will give me a “D” on my quiz. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/308 "2017-05-05T15:11:37Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Yeah, I had an “except when they are” caveat but removed it for simplicity. I guess I should have left it in. Now Prof. **Bricker** will give me a “D” on my quiz. There are clauses in the Federal Constitution that prevent states from doing certain things, and of course most of the BoR has been incorporated (by the court) to apply to the states, mainly based on the 14th amendment. But states also have constitutions that limit their authority, too, so states can’t just run wild and do anything they wish to do. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/309 "2017-05-05T15:19:24Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Can we move on, or do you want to continue to talk down to me? Is that a rhetorical question? You guys know the old saw about wrestling with a pig, right? Stranger ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/310 "2017-05-05T15:25:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > There are clauses in the Federal Constitution that prevent states from doing certain things, and of course most of the BoR has been incorporated (by the court) to apply to the states, mainly based on the 14th amendment. But states also have constitutions that limit their authority, too, so states can’t just run wild and do anything they wish to do. Understood, and thank you. But with respect to healthcare, I consider that too important an issue to be left to the states to implement in the way that the recently passed house bill proposes to allow. So in contrast to the OP, anything that moves away from the ACA makes things worse for the nation as a whole. Which is not to say that the ACA was perfect or went far enough towards UHC. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/311 "2017-05-05T15:30:40Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Understood, and thank you. > > But with respect to healthcare, I consider that too important an issue to be left to the states to implement in the way that the recently passed house bill proposes to allow. So in contrast to the OP, anything that moves away from the ACA makes things worse for the nation as a whole. Which is not to say that the ACA was perfect or went far enough towards UHC. Well, the problem is you can’t just ignore the constitution because something is “too important”. If, that is, you accept Bricker’s premise that the constitution does not give the feds authority in that area. But frankly, I think the odds of success are much better if it’s done by the states. That way you don’t have Mississippi telling New York what it has to do, and vice versa. It’s a big, diverse country, and one size does not it all. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/312 "2017-05-05T15:31:27Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Okay, I keep seeing this, and I keep coming back to the same thought: what hope does your philosophy offer? Why should the poor, disabled, chronically ill, and suddenly cancer stricken go along with this? How does “I’m sorry you have to go bankrupt and die, but that’s not my problem” help societal stability? > > I mean, you may not care, but do you at least acknowledge that running a national government that way might wind up with people being guillotined in the town square? What does your way of doing things offer people who are in need of help just to survive besides a shrug, especially when they can look at other countries who do things differently? > > Speaking of which, would you personally have a different answer than Bricker with regards to my question on how you would convince a Canadian or European that the American system is better? > > (These questions apply to all who agree with the OP in general principles; there are at least a couple.) I have never been against charity or giving. Never. I believe it is a positive good. However, I do not believe in forced charity or a system of government that requires a person to give his money to another in the name of charity. That is otherwise known as theft. I am not saying a person should “go bankrupt and die.” I am saying that the government should not be the entity that prevents bankruptcy and death. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/313 "2017-05-05T15:36:25Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Is that a rhetorical question? > > You guys know the old saw about wrestling with a pig, right? > > Stranger Yeah, I had a pretty good idea what I was getting myself into. Just felt I had to try to understand Bricker’s position, as I understand it, which seems to be: _The ACA (or its equivalent) is a terrible idea because it unfairly impinges on individual rights through taxes. Besides, Fed vs. State Law! Unless it’s codified in the constitution and becomes an entitlement. Then I’m all for it!_ ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/314 "2017-05-05T15:37:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But frankly, I think the odds of success are much better if it’s done by the states. That way you don’t have Mississippi telling New York what it has to do, and vice versa. It’s a big, diverse country, and one size does not it all. I do not understand this. Health insurance is merely a list of things the insurance will pay for as regards medical care. How different is that list going to be between Mississippi and New York? New York doesn’t have to cover alligator attacks? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/315 "2017-05-05T15:38:37Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Is that a rhetorical question? > > You guys know the old saw about wrestling with a pig, right? > > Stranger If you want to wrestle with a pig, saw him in half first! ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/316 "2017-05-05T15:40:06Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > I am opposed to conscription, too. But my question is not whether you are in favor of it or oppose it. My question is: do you believe it is a constitutional exercise of federal power? SCOTUS has ruled conscription constitutional as part of the ‘raise armies’ clause. While I oppose it, I think conscription logically follows from that. I think forcing people to buy a product doesn’t flow from anything in the constitution. I know the general welfare clause has been interpreted quite broadly, but even in that before the ACA is was only construed to allow congress to spend, not force people to buy. Have Congress appropriate the funds and provide health care as an entitlement like they do with Medicare and the constitutional argument goes away. The argument against forcing people to buy broccoli is the same one against forcing people to buy insurance or GM cars. That reading of the general welfare clause is too broad and virtually unlimited - a power that congress should not have. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/317 "2017-05-05T15:41:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, the problem is you can’t just ignore the constitution because something is “too important”. If, that is, you accept Bricker’s premise that the constitution does not give the feds authority in that area. > > But frankly, I think the odds of success are much better if it’s done by the states. That way you don’t have Mississippi telling New York what it has to do, and vice versa. It’s a big, diverse country, and one size does not it all. I’m for a new constitutional amendment to enshrine a new entitlement for UHC. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/318 "2017-05-05T15:41:46Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Yeah, I had a pretty good idea what I was getting myself into. Just felt I had to try to understand Bricker’s position, as I understand it, which seems to be: > > _The ACA (or its equivalent) is a terrible idea because it unfairly impinges on individual rights through taxes. Besides, Fed vs. State Law! Unless it’s codified in the constitution and becomes an entitlement. Then I’m all for it!_ As I see it **Bricker** is being a stickler for the rules to the exclusion of all else. My take on his position is: _“The rules as laid out in the constitution do not allow the federal government to provide universal health care. If the rules are amended to allow it then great. Till then no UHC for you!”_ ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/319 "2017-05-05T15:47:02Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > As I see it **Bricker** is being a stickler for the rules to the exclusion of all else. My take on his position is: > > _“The rules as laid out in the constitution do not allow the federal government to provide universal health care. If the rules are amended to allow it then great. Till then no UHC for you!”_ Which is exactly the thing that bedevils me about that position. Either UHC is a good thing, or it isn’t. What does it matter what legal vehicle is used to enact it? And furthermore, why is taxation to achieve the objective (UHC) immoral in one case but not the other? ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/320 "2017-05-05T15:48:34Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If you want to wrestle with a pig, saw him in half first! You’ve never been around hogs, have you? What vile, screeching creatures hatha God wrouht upon us in swine! Stranger [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871.md?page=17)