Only in their natural habitat.
On a plate.
I am not talking down to you. But I am trying to understand what you think my words mean, because if we are each using the same words and meaning different things, it’s unlikely that we will either agree, or even understand the merits of our respective positions.
And, indeed, your answer is not what I was intending the words to mean, so was my question really a waste of time?
Plenary state power in our system is NOT correctly and completely described as the authority of each state to make its own laws not subject to federal government review. That doesn’t exist: state laws in a variety of areas are subject to review for the way they interact with the federal constitution and federal statutes.
The key element I want to highlight, though, is that states’ authority is not enumerated. States may legislate in any area EXCEPT those which are the exclusive domain of the federal government, but the federal government can ONLY legislate where Congress has been explicitly granted authority by the Constitution.
You see? It’s the difference between “You can do anything except what’s on this list,” and “You can do only the things on this list.”
I’m sorry to give any impression that I’m talking down to you, but it was clear to me that this concept was not being well communicated by me. Since I had already explained it, I thought it would help if I heard what you thought I was saying.
Either Joe is a murderer, or he’s not. And if he is, why does it matter that the police got their evidence without a warrant?
The answer is clear that it matters BOTH that we convict murderers and we dont allow police to search without warrants.
For health care, it matters BOTH that have good health care and we retain the distinction between federal and state powers.
Is that truly your good-faith attempt to explain my position?
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The concept of federalism is outdated and doesn’t provide a good governing model for the modern United States.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.
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: Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, VA, ACA (as duly endorsed by SCOTUS, twice) and the tax code in respect of employer-sponsored health insurance?
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? Among those reasons is the entanglement of any state UHC program with existing Medicaid and other federal programs, and the need for cost-sharing and national standards and uniformity.
Thirdly, how do you reconcile your novel legal analysis with Helvering v. Davis, wherein the Supreme Court “held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare, and did not contravene the 10th Amendment. The Court’s 7-2 decision defended the constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose”?
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?
n/m
Because if he’s not, his privacy has been nullified for no reason. Without probable cause (a warrant), there’s no reasonable assumption there is any evidence there anyway.
By the way, this job you keep talking about - what kind of health insurance does it come with?
Yeah, he shouldn’t have said that and yes, it was rated Lie of the Year.
But I cut him more slack on that one that most people because a lot of the plans that were dropped were so crappy they couldn’t legally be called insurance. They had names like Health Savings Plan or Health Care Club. Some of them were “bridge policies”, originally intended to cover expenses up to the deductible of a real policy and intended to be used in conjunction with a real policy. But low wage employers started offering them as stand-alone products and employees loved them. They were really cheap and they paid for all their doctors visits and prescription meds. And if their annual healthcare expenses were under 2K, then they never even realized that they were effectively uninsured. A lot of people found out the truth about these policies the hard way, though.
Understood, and thank you for clarifying. I apologize for mistakenly concluding you meant to talk down to me.
Here is the sentiment I have consistently advanced in this thread:
What questions remain from your post once I have reminded you of that?
But see, that’s very confusing. If you don’t think it’s unconstitutional, why is it “unwise” if you’re OK with government at the state level doing it? Are you saying you think it should be unconstitutional?
How power is distributed in society and legal precedents may actually be more
important than more efficiency in health care.
And…
You seem to be arguing it is unconstitutional and then say you are not saying it is unconstitutional.
Very confusing.
The wider the net is spread, the better it will work. Doing it on a low state-wide level will cause those who need that insurance help and can afford to move to all congregate in those isolated areas that have that help, causing those systems to collapse from overuse, which would be bad…unless your ultimate goal is to have the whole thing collapse, of course.
Right.
But other people genuinely liked their policies, or didn’t mind that their policies did not cover contraception but were otherwise robust.
I give him a pass too, because I think he had great intentions as opposed to malevolent ones. But seldom is a a villain a a villain in his own mind. Most lies arise from a belief that the underlying cause is a just one.
Not at all. Please quote the post in which I argue it’s unconstitutional.
Your failure to find that post should clear up the confusion.
What??
“Unwise” and “unconstitutional,” are not remotely synonymous.
I concede the constitutional power of the Commonwealth of Virginia to begin enforcing speed limits strictly, and ticketing drivers who exceed it by even 2 mph. But I think such an approach would be unwise.
Bricker, I have some sympathy for your principled view that the role of government should be strictly defined, and that using the government to force others to perform services for you is outside that scope. I used to consider myself a libertarian, and when I was younger I was pretty ideological about it.
But I’ve realized that there are some things that a limited government and the free market just doesn’t handle well, and the vast majority of people are OK with the government stepping in. For example, we pretty much all accept that the government should build roads, and that a public education is an important benefit to society. Also, having a social safety net so that people don’t have to starve to death.
The market for health care has not been a free one for decades now. The country settled on an employer-based system just because of historical accident, and the result of government meddling, when there were wage freezes in the 1950s, so companies offered health insurance as a benefit in lieu of higher wages. Since then the government has stepped in to demand that employers provide health insurance to their full-time employees. Was that also an improper role of government?
The market for health care is so thoroughly regulated now (and it was in 2009), that the government is effectively running it and we don’t have a free system anyway. Why not just tweak it so that millions of people can get the health care they need?
Your principled idea of a free health care market isn’t going to happen. That ship has sailed. Our choice is now between a badly broken system of private health insurance that leaves out millions, or a slightly more regulated system that insures those millions (or eventually having a single-payer system, but let’s not even go there for now).
Is having slightly less government interference really worth seeing tens of thousands of people die?