# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/81 "2017-05-04T22:39:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The proper role of government has been . . .not gained, but nudged closer. No doubt you’ve noticed there’s a great divide between people who believe the government has a role in keeping people healthy and those who don’t. Religious beliefs are not in play here, so what is “proper” in your view is proper according to…? What. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/82 "2017-05-04T22:40:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I would not object in the slightest if Virginia did this. It’s the kind of decision that IS the proper role of a government with plenary legislative power. > > Not a fan of the unfunded mandate, to be sure. But since the federal government does (or should) lack the power to act in this arena, I remain steadfast that they should never get involved in that mission, except perhaps by educational efforts to teach the value of health coverage. So, to clarify: Your objection is not with UHC in any form. Your objection is with federally funded health care? States are free to adopt whatever form of UHC they want? If the answer to this is yes, then my next question becomes: Would you object to a federal law that criminalizes the denial of medical care to anyone resident in the US based upon their inability to pay? In other words, a civil rights law regarding health care? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/83 "2017-05-04T22:42:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, although the reason it’s well spent has nothing to do with healthcare outcomes and everything to do with the proper role of government. So you feel that people in Europe and Canada are worse off than Americans in that regard, at least when it comes to health care and outcomes. Do you acknowledge that it’s a tough road to convince said Europeans of this (and thus, by extension, those who believe in a federal UHC system)? If you had to, how would you go about convincing these people a that your way, despite the current numbers and prevailing opinions, is bett? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/84 "2017-05-04T22:43:09Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > So, to clarify: Your objection is not with UHC in any form. Your objection is with federally funded health care? States are free to adopt whatever form of UHC they want? I’m hesitant to agree to “any” form, but I’d provisionally say that they can, subject to reversal if some edge case I’m not picturing comes to the table. > [@](#): > > If the answer to this is yes, then my next question becomes: Would you object to a federal law that criminalizes the denial of medical care to anyone resident in the US based upon their inability to pay? In other words, a civil rights law regarding health care? Yes, I would. Same reason: not a federal power. ---
**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 4, 2017, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/85 "2017-05-04T22:44:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. Maybe some tweaks here and there, but yes. So, can you clarify post #65 then? “I think that I should pay to keep my family in good shape, and you cover yours. Just like you pay for your clothes and your kid’s Xbox and I pay for my clothes and my kid’s Xbox.” ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/86 "2017-05-04T22:46:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m hesitant to agree to “any” form, but I’d provisionally say that they can, subject to reversal if some edge case I’m not picturing comes to the table. > > Yes, I would. Same reason: not a federal power. Would you object to a constitutional amendment granting the federal government that power? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/87 "2017-05-04T22:46:25Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Go ahead and start the debate. What do you prefer in this policy over ACA? Indeed. This original post is even lamer than the much-derided link-plus-“discuss” version in that we didn’t even get a link. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/88 "2017-05-04T22:48:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m hesitant to agree to “any” form, but I’d provisionally say that they can, subject to reversal if some edge case I’m not picturing comes to the table. > > Yes, I would. Same reason: not a federal power. Wait. How is it not a “federal power”? Explain why the Constitution forbids the federal government from doing this? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/89 "2017-05-04T22:48:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, can you clarify post #65 then? Here is post 65: > [@Bricker](#): > > Thanks for sharing. > > I don’t reciprocate. I think that I should pay to keep my family in good shape, and you cover yours. Just like you pay for your clothes and your kid’s Xbox and I pay for my clothes and my kid’s Xbox. The context of the thread is a federal mandate and a federal program. If we started talking about a state program, my answer changes. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/90 "2017-05-04T22:48:48Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Would you object to a constitutional amendment granting the federal government that power? Since **Bricker** doesn’t consider the Supreme Court to be legitimate, he most likely would object. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/91 "2017-05-04T22:50:03Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Wait. How is it not a “federal power”? Explain why the Constitution forbids the federal government from doing this? Don’t have to. The Constitution doesn’t need to forbid the federal government. The federal government doesn’t have plenary legislative power. You want a federal law, you show me where the Constitution authorizes it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/92 "2017-05-04T22:51:06Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Since **Bricker** doesn’t consider the Supreme Court to be legitimate, he most likely would object. If you’re taking over for me in this thread, get busy – there are lots of posts to be answered. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/93 "2017-05-04T22:52:34Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Since **Bricker** doesn’t consider the Supreme Court to be legitimate, he most likely would object. I’m pretty sure that’s neither an accurate description of **Bricker** ’s view of the Supreme Court, nor related in any way to the question I asked. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/94 "2017-05-04T22:53:15Z")
Just thinking about the news stories I haven’t seen lately. Used to be pretty common, the story about the guy who thought he had good insurance until he got really sick. And the insurance co looked very, very carefully and discovered something pre-existing and bingo! He played Wheel of Coverage and hit bankrupt. And dead, sometimes. Haven’t seen those as much lately, and I’m glad of it. Start seeing them again, I’ll know who to blame. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/95 "2017-05-04T22:55:16Z")
Bricker, to follow up on my previous post, I think one reason you’re meeting with so much resistance is that you haven’t really explained why the trade off is worth it. So far, Europeans and Americans hear you saying “you’re better off worrying about huge medical bills with worse outcomes than having UHC because the government shouldn’t be involved in health care to begin with,” and you haven’t yet explained why they should care, or what benefit it is to them. Am I being clear here? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/96 "2017-05-04T22:56:09Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Would you object to a constitutional amendment granting the federal government that power? If it passed, I’d be completely and utterly supportive of the resulting system. I’d rather see it done by the states, if it’s to be done, but if the idea commanded 2/3rds + 3/4s, then it’s clearly a situation in which there’s massive state-wide agreement that the task is national. ---
**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 4, 2017, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/97 "2017-05-04T22:57:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here is post 65: > > The context of the thread is a federal mandate and a federal program. > > If we started talking about a state program, my answer changes. Not really, but I won’t make a big deal about it. What you said was not about the powers of the federal government, but about the powers of government vs the responsibility of the individual. That’s not context dependent. Anyway, you have now clarified that you support government funded health care as long as it’s within the purview of that government’s powers. IE, not a libertarian position. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/98 "2017-05-04T22:57:36Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Bricker, to follow up on my previous post, I think one reason you’re meeting with so much resistance is that you haven’t really explained why the trade off is worth it. So far, Europeans and Americans hear you saying “you’re better off worrying about huge medical bills with worse outcomes than having UHC because the government shouldn’t be involved in health care to begin with,” and you haven’t yet explained why they should care, or what benefit it is to them. Am I being clear here? Yes, but my objections aren’t grounded in medical outcomes. My objections arise from the unique dual sovereignty we have between states and the federal government. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/99 "2017-05-04T22:58:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not really, but I won’t make a big deal about it. What you said was not about the powers of the federal government, but about the powers of government vs the responsibility of the individual. That’s not context dependent. > > Anyway, you have now clarified that you support government funded health care as long as it’s within the purview of that government’s powers. IE, not a libertarian position. As long as it’s within the purview of the government’s powers AND as long as it’s an expression of the will of the electorate. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/100 "2017-05-04T22:59:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Don’t have to. The Constitution doesn’t need to forbid the federal government. The federal government doesn’t have plenary legislative power. > > You want a federal law, you show me where the Constitution authorizes it. Oh, that’s simple, and you know it. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. And Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 allows the federal government to provide health care directly to its citizens/residents. So either way, it’s within the POWER of the government to do. I thought your objection was not based upon the power, but the correctness of doing it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871.md?page=6)