# 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:** 9
**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 4, 2017, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/161 "2017-05-04T23:54:56Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > You appear to state that there is some difference between “choosing to drive” and “choosing to continue being a resident of this country/state.” I would assert that logically speaking, there is no fundamental difference, where the **power** to do something is concerned. > > Again, whether it **should** be exercised remains up for discussion. There’s a pretty stark difference. I, as a citizen of this country, have a right to be here. The federal government following the precedent of the ACA can compel me to buy Trump University Diplomas, Trump Steaks, GM cars, and broccoli to their hearts content just by virtue of being alive. Auto insurance is different. There is no requirement to purchase auto insurance. To exercise the privilege of driving on the public road, I need to demonstrate my ability to pay for a minimum amount of liability I may incur while doing so. You ask if the government should exercise the power to compel my investment in Trump Tower. That’s the wrong question in my view - the government shouldn’t have this power and this question should be off the table. ---
**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, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/162 "2017-05-04T23:55:28Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Apart from the fact that when things are experimented with on the state level, people would be able to vote with their feet. Which is much harder to do when you have to leave the country to do it. Except in this particular case, we’re talking about a demographic (poor, sick, vulnerable) for whom moving out of state is probably just as difficult as moving out of the country, financially and otherwise. Again, I’d feel more inclined to go along with this position if it was accompanied with ANY reason whatsoever for the poor, sick, and disabled to go along with it. As it is, those who advocate as you do in government seem content to just ignore what happens to those people, and I don’t see how that’s tenable, sustainable, or humane. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/163 "2017-05-04T23:55:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If you asked if I’m completely OK with murderers going free because of the Fourth Amendment I’d probably respond, “No – But I’m ok with that result on balance.The value the Fourth Amendment brings to society outweighs the occasional poor result that a murderer escapes trial because the police violated the Fourth Amendment to gain the evidence showing the man’s murderous ways.” > > But you asked instead if I’m completely ok with paying money for your fellow citizens to suffer and die needlessly. And my answer is: No, but on balance, I accept the result." > > Do you understand why I prefaced my comment thusly? > > In a similar thread, ages ago, I answered a similar question without making my nuance clear, and the resulting quote had one poster following me around for years claiming I reveled in death. So to be clear: I do not. I just don’t understand what possible benefits you see that could get close to justifying the cost in humans suffering and loss of freedom. > [@Okrahoma](#): > > Like Vermont trying to institute a single payer health care reform (and failing miserably). For the same reason Vermont could not do it: You are already spending all the money. You got Medicare, Medicaid, VA, IHA, Childrens etc, etc and all the bureaucracy and gatekeeping that goes with having upteen different systems doing overlapping work. Adding another layer of provision to the unholy pile isn’t going to be affordable, athogh it is a very American way of trying to fix healthcare. ---
**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 4, 2017, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/164 "2017-05-04T23:57:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. I don’t disagree in the slightest. > > But this thread was opened after one of the two houses of Congress ALSO passed a law, which I assume you’ll agree will be equally constitutional if passed by the Senate and signed by the President. So that argument is a wash, in a sense. Getting ahead of ourselves aren’t we? The Senate has already said [it will not vote on this bill](http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/senate-wont-vote-on-house-passed-healthcare-bill/article/2622152) but rather will draft their own. Obamacare, on the other hand, is passed and survived numerous court challenges. So not really a wash yet I’d say. ---
**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, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/165 "2017-05-05T00:00:28Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > i’m assuming the **Esq** in your handle means youre a lawyer so you should know that its not a very dangerous assertion. its the basis of almost all law; if someone with the power to do something does it, and someone else with the power to say that action is unlawful, doesnt do it, then that action receives the full power of becoming legal and justified. > if thats not good enough, how about precedent? medicare, medicaid, social security, the veterans administration, these are all examles of the govmint taking $ from person A and giving it to personB for their medical care. > > mc Please note that _I_ have yet to say: 1) if I believe the ACA was a valid exercise of federal power under the Constitution, 2) if I believe the ACA was a valid exercise of power in the sense of something that should have been done, or 3) Hi, Opal! The point still is being missed here: **Bricker** is attempting to assert that the ACA should not have been passed for _reasons_, reasons which have yet to be fleshed out fully in my opinion (are they based on lack of valid power, or lack of how that power should be used?). But they are reasons that have to do with his vision of how the government should work. He has a framework in mind, a set of rules by which people in power in the government should limit their exercise of what is otherwise raw naked power. If the justification for the ACA is simply, “They did it, because they had the power, and that’s all the justification they need,” then **Bricker** can justifiably reply that today’s passage of the ACHA was justified by the fact that “they had the power, and that’s all the justification they need.” Principles of government be damned, in other words; just do what you want when you have the power. That’s not a good idea. Do you think it is a good idea? As for the rest of your post (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), have you really been reading what I’ve been posting in the thread? 😉 ---
**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, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/166 "2017-05-05T00:01:43Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > I wasn’t denying your assertion, _per se_. To the extent you were asserting that forcing someone to pay to Trump University is an expression of the type of power I was talking about, you are correct. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. > > However, you tried to use a specific example to make a general point. The trouble with that is the specific example may have OTHER issues besides the general issue under discussion. Which I was addressing. OK, but the problem I see with interpreting the General Welfare clause so broadly is that it, in effect, gives unlimited powers to the Feds, when the constitution clearly is not intended to do that. The government could declare that “education” is part of the general welfare and that Trump U. is uniquely qualified to provide that education in the same way that it tells us not only that we must by insurance, but what type of insurance we must buy. ---
**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, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/167 "2017-05-05T00:03:50Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > There’s a pretty stark difference. I, as a citizen of this country, have a right to be here. The federal government following the precedent of the ACA can compel me to buy Trump University Diplomas, Trump Steaks, GM cars, and broccoli to their hearts content just by virtue of being alive. > > Auto insurance is different. There is no requirement to purchase auto insurance. To exercise the privilege of driving on the public road, I need to demonstrate my ability to pay for a minimum amount of liability I may incur while doing so. > > You ask if the government should exercise the power to compel my investment in Trump Tower. That’s the wrong question in my view - the government shouldn’t have this power and this question should be off the table. Do you believe the federal government has the power to draft you into the armed forces of the country? If you say yes to this, I’d assert that the rest of your complaint is pure hypocrisy, because the only “choice” you are making in that case is the same choice I offered: stay here and live or move elsewhere (an option many who didn’t want to be drafted took). ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/168 "2017-05-05T00:04:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My objection to Obamacare has always been one of basic philosophy: I don’t agree that providing everyone with health care is a proper role of government. > > Therefore, I think that it’s wise when we move away from that model, and unwise when we move towards it. My inclination is to interpret this as meaning that, in your view, “Repeal and DON’T Replace” would have been an even wiser policy move. Yes? ---
**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, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/169 "2017-05-05T00:04:50Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Except in this particular case, we’re talking about a demographic (poor, sick, vulnerable) for whom moving out of state is probably just as difficult as moving out of the country, financially and otherwise. > > Again, I’d feel more inclined to go along with this position if it was accompanied with ANY reason whatsoever for the poor, sick, and disabled to go along with it. As it is, those who advocate as you do in government seem content to just ignore what happens to those people, and I don’t see how that’s tenable, sustainable, or humane. So you think that anything that the “poor, sick, and disabled” are unwilling to go along with shouldn’t be passed??? :dubious: ---
**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, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/170 "2017-05-05T00:05:31Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > If the justification for the ACA is simply, “They did it, because they had the power, and that’s all the justification they need,” then **Bricker** can justifiably reply that today’s passage of the ACHA was justified by the fact that “they had the power, and that’s all the justification they need.” Principles of government be damned, in other words; just do what you want when you have the power. That’s not a good idea. Do you think it is a good idea? The Supreme Court decided the federal government did have the power. It was decided within the framework of how our government works so the ACA was not a raw exercise of unchecked power. All the “i’s” were dotted and “t’s” were crossed as regards the passage of laws in the US. Now, anyone can certainly argue that, in their opinion, the Supreme Court got it wrong. No problem with that. We do that all the time here. But to contend it was passed because they strong armed everyone is too much. ---
**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, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/171 "2017-05-05T00:05:23Z")
I am opposed to conscription. The federal government has exercised this power previously, obviously. They have also forced people to purchase health insurance under the ACA. I am opposed to both. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/172 "2017-05-05T00:07:50Z")
The ACA is not analogous to a hypothetical bill compelling people to pay tuition at Trump University. The analogous bill would instead compel people to pay for tuition at the university of their choice. While I don’t think that this would be a wise move, I see no fundamental objection to government being able to issue that compulsion. Or, on the other side of the coin, the analogous situation to being forced to pay tuition at Trump University would be to be forced to buy health insurance from one specific company. And that I would find just as objectionable as the Trump U one. ---
**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, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/173 "2017-05-05T00:09:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, but the problem I see with interpreting the General Welfare clause so broadly is that it, in effect, gives unlimited powers to the Feds, when the constitution clearly is not intended to do that. The government could declare that “education” is part of the general welfare and that Trump U. is uniquely qualified to provide that education in the same way that it tells us not only that we must by insurance, but what type of insurance we must buy. Tell me, if you please, from the “plain meaning” of the words in the General Welfare clause, how the ACA is an unconstitutional exercise of power? Tell me, if you please, from the “plain meaning” of the words in the General Welfare clause, how the Trump University Forced Payment Act is an unconstitutional exercise of power? Tell me, if you please, from the “plain meaning” of the words in the General Welfare clause how ANY limit on the taxing and spending of money by the federal government for something that improves the “welfare” of the people as a whole can be considered unconstitutional use of power? Be careful: you may be asserting that the ACHA is unconstitutional in your answer… ---
**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, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/174 "2017-05-05T00:09:44Z")
It doesn’t have to be Trump U. It could be a certain serving of vegetables, or caloric intake. Or a new GM car every 2 years, or basically _anything_. If the ACA was simply an entitlement there would be absolutely no constitutional objection. Then it’s just a matter of spending policy. ---
**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, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/175 "2017-05-05T00:10:28Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I am opposed to conscription. The federal government has exercised this power previously, obviously. They have also forced people to purchase health insurance under the ACA. I am opposed to both. 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? ---
**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, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/176 "2017-05-05T00:11:41Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The Supreme Court decided the federal government did have the power. It was decided within the framework of how our government works so the ACA was not a raw exercise of unchecked power. All the “i’s” were dotted and “t’s” were crossed as regards the passage of laws in the US. > > Now, anyone can certainly argue that, in their opinion, the Supreme Court got it wrong. No problem with that. We do that all the time here. > > But to contend it was passed because they strong armed everyone is too much. Please note that a) _I_ never said any such thing, and b) nor did **HMS Irruncible**. I recommend going back and reading the interchange of commentary. 😉 ---
**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, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/177 "2017-05-05T00:12:43Z")
Oops, I’ll be back to see if **Bricker** still needs me. Time to pick up the SO from work… ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/178 "2017-05-05T00:14:39Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > So you think that anything that the “poor, sick, and disabled” are unwilling to go along with shouldn’t be passed??? :dubious: No, I’m asking why they should accept a “you’re going to die on the streets, but that’s what the law demands” as a response to their problems. All this talk about enumerated powers is fine and important, but seems rarely, if ever, accompanied by any attempt, or even discussion, at addressing the core issue of the particular law we’re talking about. Why should anyone who’s sick, or who has a family member who’s sick, or might one day become sick, support the conservative viewpoint? I’m asking those with that viewpoint to answer that question. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/179 "2017-05-05T00:16:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I am certainly sorry to hear that people you know may be harmed, but it’s not clear to me why that fact should trump (ha!) all others in a discussion of public policy. If we were to debate mandatory seatbelt laws, you could make the same statement – should I then simply retire from the mandatory seatbelt debate, because you invoked the possible deaths of people you know if your preferred policy is not accepted? Personally, I find it a bit unfortunate that, as a man who has declared himself an adherent of an ethic implying that we ARE, in fact, our brother’s keepers, you are giving a good impression of someone who considers his obligation to that ethic fulfilled by an expression that he is sorry to learn of another’s misfortune. ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2017, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/180 "2017-05-05T00:17:22Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > If the justification for the ACA is simply, “They did it, because they had the power, and that’s all the justification they need,” then **Bricker** can justifiably reply that today’s passage of the ACHA was justified by the fact that “they had the power, and that’s all the justification they need.” Principles of government be damned, in other words; just do what you want when you have the power. That’s not a good idea. Do you think it is a good idea? thats the wrong question to ask me. i dont think much of what our govt does or the way they do it is a good idea. but no “Principles of government” have been damned here. “just do what you want when you have the power” is the way our govt has been run since the begining. > [@](#): > > As for the rest of your post (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), have you really been reading what I’ve been posting in the thread? the whole of my response was to the statement that it was a “dangerous assertion”. i was saying that power and precedence has always been the way. if i credited that statement to your personal philosophy wrongly, i apologize. mc [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871.md?page=10)