# 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:** 21
**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, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/401 "2017-05-05T20:45:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, no – the cure for lack of clarity is to ask – much as I did with you when trying to clarify your understanding of “plenary legislative authority.” It certainly does not allow you to announce, “You have stated…” when I never stated any such thing. Fair enough. I apologize for putting words in your mouth. In context of the discussion we’re having in this thread, what is your position on the healthcare issue. IOW, what does **BrickerCare** look like in the US? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/402 "2017-05-05T20:57:18Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > It would be interesting to know how and when Christianity shifted to the belief that their compassion ought to be means tested. It’s an interesting twist you have to admit. > > I’m pretty sure that Book of theirs dictates that the least worthy are the MOST deserving of compassion. Christians sometimes seem pretty slippery to me. I have to say that the best Christians in my old country were shot and killed just because they showed with their actions how unchristian the ones in power were circa 1970-1990. Could not have those “bad” examples showing the poor people the raw deal they were getting. As I saw elsewhere someone noted how sad it was that the Republicans do not mind that their efforts could end up killing more Americans than ISIS is killing in a year. [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm) I go for that estimate of 18,000 Americans dying for lack of Insurance in a year because of the ones doing the survey and just because is one of the recent studies with the **lowest** count found. Just to be fair to the “consciences” of Republicans in power. Others estimate higher death counts. ---
**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, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/403 "2017-05-05T20:58:48Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > No. It’s saying I don’t think the federal government should be constitutionally allowed to force people to buy something. Forcing a person to buy broccoli should not be a constitutionally valid power. See, I would think you’d be much more amenable to being able to choose your healthcare plan based on your risk/cost/benefit tolerance. So choosing from a list of bronze/silver/gold/platinum plans and available providers and networks would give you more control than simply having the gov’t cover everyone with the same level of care. I’m for UHC and it being completely funded by taxes with the same (high) level of care for everyone. But if it’s going to cost you anyway, I could see the argument in being able to choose per an ACA type system (with built in assurances not to gouge those most vulnerable). ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/404 "2017-05-05T21:00:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And who gets to define words. I think if we really wanted a compassionate society we’d ban abortion, since aborting an unborn child represents an extraordinary lack of compassion towards the unborn child. But obviously you disagree. Yes, I disagree, because sometimes definitions become a matter of debate, and sometimes they are crystal clear, like the definition of what a human being is. Like, for instance, whether a bean-sized non-sentient lump of protoplasm is a human being, versus whether a Syrian refugee is a human being. Let me cite a case in point on this matter of compassion, sent to me by Canadian ex-pat relatives who are currently resident citizens of the US. They have been horrified by the xenophobic treatment of Muslims and refugee applicants under the current administration, and equally horrified by Republican attempts to decimate the health care system and the meager incremental progress that was made by the Obama administration. It was [this _New York Times_ article](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/world/canada/syrian-refugees.html?_r=0) citing one particular family as an examplar of the thousands of Canadians who have personally sponsored and helped – emotionally and financially – thousands of Syrian refugee families become settled in this country and integrated into their communities. Keep in mind that Canada is a country that no longer outlaws abortion at any stage, although in practice late-term abortions are very rare. This is also a country that embraces single-payer universal health care from coast to coast. So either liberals in Canada are wildly inconsistent in being compassionate in health care policy and generous in refugee admissions and resettlement while being horribly cruel in abortion policy, or maybe you’re misguided on some vital point. The alternative view is that Republicans are absolutely consistent in their lack of compassion towards immigrants, the poor who lack health care, the middle class who pay too much for it, and women who seek the right to have control of their own bodies. You brought up the comparison with abortion. You decide which viewpoint is the most logically consistent explanation. Keep in mind who your current president is. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_lining](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Silver\_lining](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_lining)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/405 "2017-05-05T21:07:32Z")
It’s too early to tell how good or bad the new bill will be. Obama care did not meet expectations, aside from raising other people’s health care costs, and inserting a penalty for those with no coverage. ---
**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, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/406 "2017-05-05T21:15:03Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > It’s too early to tell how good or bad the new bill will be. > > Obama care did not meet expectations, aside from raising other people’s health care costs, and inserting a penalty for those with no coverage. Absolutely not true. The ACA covered millions of people who did not previously have access to affordable healthcare. It extended coverage for young adults living at home. Expanded Medicare coverage. It isn’t perfect. But it’s not in any way a failure that the GOP insists it is. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/407 "2017-05-05T21:32:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You are also on the inhumane side still as by implication you are supporting then the prevention of abortion in the cases of rape and incest. Back off. Let’s stick to discussing the actual topic and leave the personal cracks to The BBQ Pit. [/Moderating] ---
**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, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/408 "2017-05-05T21:35:00Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So then it is really just about where you where you enter the charge on the ledger. > > Government making you buy some insurance is not ok. > > Government taking that same amount of money from you and buying that insurance is fine in your view. > > End result is exactly the same. No, the process is entirely different. The current process can be used to support the forced purchase of broccoli, GM cars, gym memberships, carrot juice, etc. There is no limit. It’s not just about where the charge is entered in the ledger - it is an argument of constitutional principles and the proper role and power of government. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/409 "2017-05-05T22:03:09Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > No, the process is entirely different. The current process can be used to support the forced purchase of broccoli, GM cars, gym memberships, carrot juice, etc. There is no limit. You don’t see a difference between merchandise and health care, between a GM car and saving a life? There is absolutely a limit to what such a principle should mandate – it shouldn’t mandate anything at all, unless it has to operate in a system so screwed up that basic human rights are treated like merchandise. ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/410 "2017-05-05T22:22:25Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You don’t see a difference between merchandise and health care, between a GM car and saving a life? There is absolutely a limit to what such a principle should mandate – it shouldn’t mandate anything at all, unless it has to operate in a system so screwed up that basic human rights are treated like merchandise. You mean merchandise and insurance right? Equivocating health care and health insurance would not be accurate. The constitutional principle that allows congress to force the purchase of health insurance can be applied to broccoli, as well as gym membership at Trump You Up Fitness CentersTM, among other things. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/411 "2017-05-05T22:33:24Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Is that a rhetorical question? > > You guys know the old saw about wrestling with a pig, right? > > Stranger This wins the thread. > [@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!_ He does rather imply this, doesn’t he? > [@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!”_ **Bricker** quotes himself: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Bricker > Since I’m not saying that the ACA was unconstitutional, but merely unwise as a role of government… While **Bricker** ’s stances almost seem contradictory, I’m sure he’ll argue that he’s been utterly consistent. Would that instead he made a sincere attempt to lay out his position, clearly and completely. **Bricker** : can you overlook momentarily that you are twice as smart as anyone else and can you forgo the pleasure you get by demonstrating that? Do you need it explained step-by-step why your recent post seems to contradict the quote above? > [@Bricker](#): > > Here, in contrast, is my good-faith effort to explain **QuickSilver** ’s position: > > The concept of federalism is outdated and doesn’t provide a good governing model for the modern United States. Over the years, the federal government’s reach has extended into areas that were not contemplated by the Constitution, and this has almost universally been a GOOD thing. And when considering healthcare, the need is so great, and the benefit so high, for managing the issue at a national level that I am simply unpersuaded that any “good” that comes from strictly observing the federalism model is worth the losses in efficiency. And we should remember that “efficiency,” means actual people struggling with actual health conditions. When that is weighed against a construct that in today’s modern world is largely a theory anyway, I don’t see federalism concerns winning out over a strong national healthcare system. There’s exaggeration in the above, e.g. “almost universally been a GOOD thing,” but toning it down can you explain where and why **Mr. Silver** ’s alleged position is objectively inferior to yours? Do you want Virginia to provide state-wide UHC? Would you vote for a national UHC constitutional amendment? > [@wolfpup](#): > > Once again, **Bricker** , how do you reconcile this amazing legal analysis with the fact that the federal government has in indisputable fact been deeply involved in national health care for a very long time:… > > Secondly, how would you propose to deal with the fact that for a variety of reasons states cannot in any practical sense implement UHC alone?.. > > Thirdly, how do you reconcile your novel legal analysis with [_Helvering v. Davis_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis), … > > Fourthly, would federal government collaboration with state-run UHC programs even be considered to be the feds being involved in UHC, as opposed to simply providing necessary funds to assist the states? I did take the time to track down Bricker’s response to this. He repeats his “Since I’m not saying that the ACA was unconstitutional, but merely unwise as a role of government…” in a disparaging tone, implying that all four of **wolfpup** ’s points are thereby dispensed with. What’s with that? Will someone please point me to the post(s), if any, where **Mr. Bricker** refutes **Mr. Wolfpup**. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/412 "2017-05-05T23:10:29Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > 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. I’m not comprehending your assertion. You concede that the federal government has the power to force you to do something (face death fighting in a war). You assert that the federal government does not have the power to force you to do something, or at least should not have that power, and did not have that power before the ACA. In this case, the “something” is to “buy something”, specifically insurance. But if a government already has the power to conscript you against your will, to force you to enlist in the armed forces as a necessary part of the power to wage war, how do you not think that it has the power to compel purchase of something as a necessary part of the power to regulate the economy? Suppose it becomes vital to the interest of the United States that some product (let’s use broccoli) be in plentiful supply. To encourage this, the federal government requires each citizen to purchase one pound of broccoli each month. How can this be any less allowable than conscription? What I take from your argument, then, is not that you truly believe that the federal government was given a power by the ACA it never had, and should never have, but rather that the ACA is an exercise of power by the federal government you would prefer it not to use, because you think government forcing someone to do something without having chosen to subject oneself to the possibility (say, by choosing to drive a car) is not a good idea. And I might agree with you. But it’s quite different, in my mind, to say: this is something the government should do very sparingly, compared to saying: this is something the government never had the power to do before, and shouldn’t have the power to do now. But I will point out one simple thing: you were never compelled to purchase insurance. You were simply taxed by the federal government if you didn’t. That’s an even different kettle of fish. ---
**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, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/413 "2017-05-05T23:37:27Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > But if a government already has the power to conscript you against your will, to force you to enlist in the armed forces as a necessary part of the power to wage war, how do you not think that it has the power to compel purchase of something as a necessary part of the power to regulate the economy? Suppose it becomes vital to the interest of the United States that some product (let’s use broccoli) be in plentiful supply. To encourage this, the federal government requires each citizen to purchase one pound of broccoli each month. How can this be any less allowable than conscription? The constitution authorizes congress to act in many different areas. Because it allows action in area A, does not mean that B is authorized. Conscription is authorized through the ‘raise armies’ clause. The raise armies clause is not what grants congress the authority to tax and spend for the general welfare - that is through the general welfare clause. Because they stem from different sources of power, it would not be a very good argument to assert that since the raise armies clause authorizes conscription, that forcing people to purchase broccoli is okay because that is less intrusive than conscription > [@](#): > > What I take from your argument, then, is not that you truly believe that the federal government was given a power by the ACA it never had, and should never have, but rather that the ACA is an exercise of power by the federal government you would prefer it not to use, because you think government forcing someone to do something without having chosen to subject oneself to the possibility (say, by choosing to drive a car) is not a good idea. Not so. I think that forcing people to purchase something should be unconstitutional - a power it never had pre-ACA and a power it should never have. I could be missing something, but this is not a power that has previously been exercised by the federal government and in that sense it is an expansion of federal power - not something they should exercise sparingly, but something they’ve never done before. Also a bad idea. Obviously the folks wearing the black robes disagreed with my assessment, but my opinion is unchanged. > [@](#): > > But I will point out one simple thing: you were never compelled to purchase insurance. You were simply taxed by the federal government if you didn’t. That’s an even different kettle of fish. A tax penalty for inaction is compulsion to act. The size of the lever matters not. ---
**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, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/414 "2017-05-05T23:48:13Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Do you want Virginia to provide state-wide UHC? Would you vote for a national UHC constitutional amendment? **Septimus** , these questions have been asked of me and answered by me so frequently in this thread that post #400 parodies the phenomenon. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/415 "2017-05-05T23:53:03Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Not so. I think that forcing people to purchase something should be unconstitutional - a power it never had pre-ACA and a power it should never have. I could be missing something, but this is not a power that has previously been exercised by the federal government and in that sense it is an expansion of federal power - not something they should exercise sparingly, but something they’ve never done before. IMHO I think it was seen before, and related to the military too, in cases were even the military reports that equipment, specific tanks, ships, weapons or military bases are not needed but the lawmakers write check for them anyhow. ---
**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, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/416 "2017-05-05T23:58:00Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Fair enough. I apologize for putting words in your mouth. > > In context of the discussion we’re having in this thread, what is your position on the healthcare issue. IOW, what does **BrickerCare** look like in the US? > [@septimus](#): > > While **Bricker** ’s stances almost seem contradictory, I’m sure he’ll argue that he’s been utterly consistent. Would that instead he made a sincere attempt to lay out his position, clearly and completely. **Bricker** : can you overlook momentarily that you are twice as smart as anyone else and can you forgo the pleasure you get by demonstrating that? Do you need it explained step-by-step why your recent post seems to contradict the quote above? > There’s exaggeration in the above, e.g. “almost universally been a GOOD thing,” but toning it down can you explain where and why **Mr. Silver** ’s alleged position is objectively inferior to yours? Do you want Virginia to provide state-wide UHC? Would you vote for a national UHC constitutional amendment? > [@Bricker](#): > > **Septimus** , these questions have been asked of me and answered by me so frequently in this thread that post #400 parodies the phenomenon. It’s been a lengthy discussion. Kindly summarize, if you don’t mind. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/417 "2017-05-05T23:59:53Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > While **Bricker** ’s stances almost seem contradictory, I’m sure he’ll argue that he’s been utterly consistent. Would that instead he made a sincere attempt to lay out his position, clearly and completely. **Bricker** : can you overlook momentarily that you are twice as smart as anyone else and can you forgo the pleasure you get by demonstrating that? Do you need it explained step-by-step why your recent post seems to contradict the quote above? Septimus, this crosses a couple of lines. I’m giving you a warning here for personal attacks. Please keep the personal comments to yourself, please. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/418 "2017-05-06T00:39:35Z")
Meanwhile, outside the realm of tiresome and tedious argumentations from tenthers and libertarians, this bill which you folks are celebrating will end up stripping tens of millions of Americans of their health care. Personally, when it comes to the question of this legislature, I think that’s a _slightly more crucial point_, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![jacobson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85f322/32.png) [@jacobson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jacobson)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/419 "2017-05-06T00:45:03Z")
Like it or not, as things go now it is costing all of us to pay for trips to the emergency room,people cannot be turned away, so our costs go up like it or not. The new bill just takes away from the people who need it, because insurances only want to insure people who they feel won’t need health care as much as someone who does. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2017, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/420 "2017-05-06T01:18:05Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Meanwhile, outside the realm of tiresome and tedious argumentations from tenthers and libertarians, this bill which you folks are celebrating will end up stripping tens of millions of Americans of their health care. Personally, when it comes to the question of this legislature, I think that’s a _slightly more crucial point_, don’t you? No. I don’t. In the long term health of the nation as a whole, I think adhering to the wisdom of recognizing proper federal roles is vastly more important. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871.md?page=22)