Backdoor to socialized medicine?

[Hobie]

[quote=briansd1]

Health care is a human right and we need to find a way to provide that to all our citizens.

[/quote]

Not in our Constitution. We already provide health care to all. Emergency rooms, local clinics, Medicare, Medicaid. The problem is forcing Americans to buy insurance is the core issue.

[briansd1]

[quote=Hobie]

Not in our Constitution. [/quote]

I guess we shall see when the Supreme Court eventually takes up the case.

It seems like a Scalia precedent will stand in the way of your wish, Hobie.

But this week, Obama administration lawyers pointed to Scalia’s opinion as supporting the constitutionality of broad federal regulation of health insurance, and most legal experts agreed.

Article I says, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [to] provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . . [and] to regulate commerce.”

Since the New Deal era of the 1930s, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the federal government can regulate almost anything that involves economic or commercial activity.

Several constitutional law experts said this week that it is somewhere between unlikely and hard-to-imagine that the Supreme Court would strike down the new healthcare law.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-constitutionality27-2010mar27,0,4134761.story?track=rss

As one of its earliest actions, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which was signed by President George Washington. It mandated that “each and every able-bodied white male citizen” must “be enrolled in the militia.”

Hardly shy about imposing federal regulations on private citizens, the militia law said that each new recruit must show up within six months carrying “a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a knapsack [and] a pouch to contain not less than 24 cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock.”

[briansd1]

[quote=Hobie]

Not in our Constitution. [/quote]

I guess we shall see when the Supreme Court eventually takes up the case.

It seems like a Scalia precedent will stand in the way of your wish, Hobie.

But this week, Obama administration lawyers pointed to Scalia’s opinion as supporting the constitutionality of broad federal regulation of health insurance, and most legal experts agreed.

Article I says, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [to] provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . . [and] to regulate commerce.”

Since the New Deal era of the 1930s, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the federal government can regulate almost anything that involves economic or commercial activity.

Several constitutional law experts said this week that it is somewhere between unlikely and hard-to-imagine that the Supreme Court would strike down the new healthcare law.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-constitutionality27-2010mar27,0,4134761.story?track=rss

As one of its earliest actions, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which was signed by President George Washington. It mandated that “each and every able-bodied white male citizen” must “be enrolled in the militia.”

Hardly shy about imposing federal regulations on private citizens, the militia law said that each new recruit must show up within six months carrying “a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a knapsack [and] a pouch to contain not less than 24 cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock.”

[briansd1]

[quote=Hobie]

Not in our Constitution. [/quote]

I guess we shall see when the Supreme Court eventually takes up the case.

It seems like a Scalia precedent will stand in the way of your wish, Hobie.

But this week, Obama administration lawyers pointed to Scalia’s opinion as supporting the constitutionality of broad federal regulation of health insurance, and most legal experts agreed.

Article I says, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [to] provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . . [and] to regulate commerce.”

Since the New Deal era of the 1930s, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the federal government can regulate almost anything that involves economic or commercial activity.

Several constitutional law experts said this week that it is somewhere between unlikely and hard-to-imagine that the Supreme Court would strike down the new healthcare law.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-constitutionality27-2010mar27,0,4134761.story?track=rss

As one of its earliest actions, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which was signed by President George Washington. It mandated that “each and every able-bodied white male citizen” must “be enrolled in the militia.”

Hardly shy about imposing federal regulations on private citizens, the militia law said that each new recruit must show up within six months carrying “a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a knapsack [and] a pouch to contain not less than 24 cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock.”

[briansd1]

[quote=Hobie]

Not in our Constitution. [/quote]

I guess we shall see when the Supreme Court eventually takes up the case.

It seems like a Scalia precedent will stand in the way of your wish, Hobie.

But this week, Obama administration lawyers pointed to Scalia’s opinion as supporting the constitutionality of broad federal regulation of health insurance, and most legal experts agreed.

Article I says, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [to] provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . . [and] to regulate commerce.”

Since the New Deal era of the 1930s, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the federal government can regulate almost anything that involves economic or commercial activity.

Several constitutional law experts said this week that it is somewhere between unlikely and hard-to-imagine that the Supreme Court would strike down the new healthcare law.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-constitutionality27-2010mar27,0,4134761.story?track=rss

As one of its earliest actions, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which was signed by President George Washington. It mandated that “each and every able-bodied white male citizen” must “be enrolled in the militia.”

Hardly shy about imposing federal regulations on private citizens, the militia law said that each new recruit must show up within six months carrying “a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a knapsack [and] a pouch to contain not less than 24 cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock.”

[briansd1]

[quote=Hobie]

Not in our Constitution. [/quote]

I guess we shall see when the Supreme Court eventually takes up the case.

It seems like a Scalia precedent will stand in the way of your wish, Hobie.

But this week, Obama administration lawyers pointed to Scalia’s opinion as supporting the constitutionality of broad federal regulation of health insurance, and most legal experts agreed.

Article I says, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [to] provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . . [and] to regulate commerce.”

Since the New Deal era of the 1930s, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the federal government can regulate almost anything that involves economic or commercial activity.

Several constitutional law experts said this week that it is somewhere between unlikely and hard-to-imagine that the Supreme Court would strike down the new healthcare law.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-constitutionality27-2010mar27,0,4134761.story?track=rss

As one of its earliest actions, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which was signed by President George Washington. It mandated that “each and every able-bodied white male citizen” must “be enrolled in the militia.”

Hardly shy about imposing federal regulations on private citizens, the militia law said that each new recruit must show up within six months carrying “a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a knapsack [and] a pouch to contain not less than 24 cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock.”

[Hobie]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Hobie]

Not in our Constitution. [/quote]

I guess we shall see when the Supreme Court eventually takes up the case.

It seems like a Scalia precedent will stand in the way of your wish, Hobie.

But this week, Obama administration lawyers pointed to Scalia’s opinion as supporting the constitutionality of broad federal regulation of health insurance, and most legal experts agreed.

Article I says, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [to] provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . . [and] to regulate commerce.”

Since the New Deal era of the 1930s, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the federal government can regulate almost anything that involves economic or commercial activity.

Several constitutional law experts said this week that it is somewhere between unlikely and hard-to-imagine that the Supreme Court would strike down the new healthcare law.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-constitutionality27-2010mar27,0,4134761.story?track=rss

You are correct. By looking back to the policies born out of the Depression these great ideas to regulate various aspects of our society resulted in many unintended consequences. And if the bill was written correctly it should not have the Court looking at it.

As one of its earliest actions, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which was signed by President George Washington. It mandated that “each and every able-bodied white male citizen” must “be enrolled in the militia.”

Hardly shy about imposing federal regulations on private citizens, the militia law said that each new recruit must show up within six months carrying “a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a knapsack [and] a pouch to contain not less than 24 cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock.”

[/quote]

Militia point is not at all related. Cmon. Can’t take the word enrolled and apply it to health insurance mandates.

The common welfare angle is a stretch to apply it to health insurance and was not what our founding fathers had in mind. I am anxious to read Antonin Scalia’s opinion, if it even makes it that far. He is absolutely brilliant.

[Hobie]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Hobie]

Not in our Constitution. [/quote]

I guess we shall see when the Supreme Court eventually takes up the case.

It seems like a Scalia precedent will stand in the way of your wish, Hobie.

But this week, Obama administration lawyers pointed to Scalia’s opinion as supporting the constitutionality of broad federal regulation of health insurance, and most legal experts agreed.

Article I says, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [to] provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . . [and] to regulate commerce.”

Since the New Deal era of the 1930s, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the federal government can regulate almost anything that involves economic or commercial activity.

Several constitutional law experts said this week that it is somewhere between unlikely and hard-to-imagine that the Supreme Court would strike down the new healthcare law.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-constitutionality27-2010mar27,0,4134761.story?track=rss

You are correct. By looking back to the policies born out of the Depression these great ideas to regulate various aspects of our society resulted in many unintended consequences. And if the bill was written correctly it should not have the Court looking at it.

As one of its earliest actions, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which was signed by President George Washington. It mandated that “each and every able-bodied white male citizen” must “be enrolled in the militia.”

Hardly shy about imposing federal regulations on private citizens, the militia law said that each new recruit must show up within six months carrying “a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a knapsack [and] a pouch to contain not less than 24 cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock.”

[/quote]

Militia point is not at all related. Cmon. Can’t take the word enrolled and apply it to health insurance mandates.

The common welfare angle is a stretch to apply it to health insurance and was not what our founding fathers had in mind. I am anxious to read Antonin Scalia’s opinion, if it even makes it that far. He is absolutely brilliant.

[Hobie]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Hobie]

Not in our Constitution. [/quote]

I guess we shall see when the Supreme Court eventually takes up the case.

It seems like a Scalia precedent will stand in the way of your wish, Hobie.

But this week, Obama administration lawyers pointed to Scalia’s opinion as supporting the constitutionality of broad federal regulation of health insurance, and most legal experts agreed.

Article I says, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [to] provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . . [and] to regulate commerce.”

Since the New Deal era of the 1930s, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the federal government can regulate almost anything that involves economic or commercial activity.

Several constitutional law experts said this week that it is somewhere between unlikely and hard-to-imagine that the Supreme Court would strike down the new healthcare law.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-constitutionality27-2010mar27,0,4134761.story?track=rss

You are correct. By looking back to the policies born out of the Depression these great ideas to regulate various aspects of our society resulted in many unintended consequences. And if the bill was written correctly it should not have the Court looking at it.

As one of its earliest actions, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which was signed by President George Washington. It mandated that “each and every able-bodied white male citizen” must “be enrolled in the militia.”

Hardly shy about imposing federal regulations on private citizens, the militia law said that each new recruit must show up within six months carrying “a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a knapsack [and] a pouch to contain not less than 24 cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock.”

[/quote]

Militia point is not at all related. Cmon. Can’t take the word enrolled and apply it to health insurance mandates.

The common welfare angle is a stretch to apply it to health insurance and was not what our founding fathers had in mind. I am anxious to read Antonin Scalia’s opinion, if it even makes it that far. He is absolutely brilliant.

[Hobie]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Hobie]

Not in our Constitution. [/quote]

I guess we shall see when the Supreme Court eventually takes up the case.

It seems like a Scalia precedent will stand in the way of your wish, Hobie.

But this week, Obama administration lawyers pointed to Scalia’s opinion as supporting the constitutionality of broad federal regulation of health insurance, and most legal experts agreed.

Article I says, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [to] provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . . [and] to regulate commerce.”

Since the New Deal era of the 1930s, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the federal government can regulate almost anything that involves economic or commercial activity.

Several constitutional law experts said this week that it is somewhere between unlikely and hard-to-imagine that the Supreme Court would strike down the new healthcare law.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-constitutionality27-2010mar27,0,4134761.story?track=rss

You are correct. By looking back to the policies born out of the Depression these great ideas to regulate various aspects of our society resulted in many unintended consequences. And if the bill was written correctly it should not have the Court looking at it.

As one of its earliest actions, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which was signed by President George Washington. It mandated that “each and every able-bodied white male citizen” must “be enrolled in the militia.”

Hardly shy about imposing federal regulations on private citizens, the militia law said that each new recruit must show up within six months carrying “a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a knapsack [and] a pouch to contain not less than 24 cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock.”

[/quote]

Militia point is not at all related. Cmon. Can’t take the word enrolled and apply it to health insurance mandates.

The common welfare angle is a stretch to apply it to health insurance and was not what our founding fathers had in mind. I am anxious to read Antonin Scalia’s opinion, if it even makes it that far. He is absolutely brilliant.

[Hobie]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Hobie]

Not in our Constitution. [/quote]

I guess we shall see when the Supreme Court eventually takes up the case.

It seems like a Scalia precedent will stand in the way of your wish, Hobie.

But this week, Obama administration lawyers pointed to Scalia’s opinion as supporting the constitutionality of broad federal regulation of health insurance, and most legal experts agreed.

Article I says, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [to] provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . . [and] to regulate commerce.”

Since the New Deal era of the 1930s, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the federal government can regulate almost anything that involves economic or commercial activity.

Several constitutional law experts said this week that it is somewhere between unlikely and hard-to-imagine that the Supreme Court would strike down the new healthcare law.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-constitutionality27-2010mar27,0,4134761.story?track=rss

You are correct. By looking back to the policies born out of the Depression these great ideas to regulate various aspects of our society resulted in many unintended consequences. And if the bill was written correctly it should not have the Court looking at it.

As one of its earliest actions, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which was signed by President George Washington. It mandated that “each and every able-bodied white male citizen” must “be enrolled in the militia.”

Hardly shy about imposing federal regulations on private citizens, the militia law said that each new recruit must show up within six months carrying “a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a knapsack [and] a pouch to contain not less than 24 cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock.”

[/quote]

Militia point is not at all related. Cmon. Can’t take the word enrolled and apply it to health insurance mandates.

The common welfare angle is a stretch to apply it to health insurance and was not what our founding fathers had in mind. I am anxious to read Antonin Scalia’s opinion, if it even makes it that far. He is absolutely brilliant.

[Coronita]

[quote=sreeb][quote=Hobie]For me the stock market is not a good measure for good legislation. After all the insurance companies got everything they wanted and are riding the wave. Soon, this tide will turn and they will be in trouble.

Here is a stock market example: Jack in the Box has grown 20% YTD while Qualcomm, is down about -10%. Doesn’t make sense. Burgers outpaces technology??[/quote]

It makes sense. The high tech business can be exported and must compete globally. The burger business can’t and doesn’t.[/quote]

Moderate hijack:

Actually, one of the speculations on why QC is getting hit is because their once bread and butter baseband chips (for which they use to be able to command hefty margins without competition) are now getting squeezed…Significantly…It use to be QC had the clear edge on be the best broadband chip and could command huge margins (take it or leave it)..Not so anymore….The asian manufacturers are putting the squeeze, even though other “competitors” don’t have a competing product, some of them I’m guessing is just saying “well, that thing costs a lot less, and it’s “good enough””. Hence, why I suspect QC’s margins on their flagship products are slipping.

BTW: You are pretty soon going to have a bunch of pissed of QC folks. For one, QC has a very nice health plan for most employees. Their plan is PPO, no payroll deductions from employees, and the coverage is generous…On top of that, if you happen to be above a certain level, there is a second “executive” health plan. I won’t go into details about that, but generally available to enginerds/directors+ above a certain level… Guess QC isn’t going to be eating this cost either so I would assume that will vaporize very soon. Expect a very large healthcare chargeoff very soon from QC and or an announcement saying they are cutting benefits…Significantly….

[Coronita]

[quote=sreeb][quote=Hobie]For me the stock market is not a good measure for good legislation. After all the insurance companies got everything they wanted and are riding the wave. Soon, this tide will turn and they will be in trouble.

Here is a stock market example: Jack in the Box has grown 20% YTD while Qualcomm, is down about -10%. Doesn’t make sense. Burgers outpaces technology??[/quote]

It makes sense. The high tech business can be exported and must compete globally. The burger business can’t and doesn’t.[/quote]

Moderate hijack:

Actually, one of the speculations on why QC is getting hit is because their once bread and butter baseband chips (for which they use to be able to command hefty margins without competition) are now getting squeezed…Significantly…It use to be QC had the clear edge on be the best broadband chip and could command huge margins (take it or leave it)..Not so anymore….The asian manufacturers are putting the squeeze, even though other “competitors” don’t have a competing product, some of them I’m guessing is just saying “well, that thing costs a lot less, and it’s “good enough””. Hence, why I suspect QC’s margins on their flagship products are slipping.

BTW: You are pretty soon going to have a bunch of pissed of QC folks. For one, QC has a very nice health plan for most employees. Their plan is PPO, no payroll deductions from employees, and the coverage is generous…On top of that, if you happen to be above a certain level, there is a second “executive” health plan. I won’t go into details about that, but generally available to enginerds/directors+ above a certain level… Guess QC isn’t going to be eating this cost either so I would assume that will vaporize very soon. Expect a very large healthcare chargeoff very soon from QC and or an announcement saying they are cutting benefits…Significantly….

[Coronita]

[quote=sreeb][quote=Hobie]For me the stock market is not a good measure for good legislation. After all the insurance companies got everything they wanted and are riding the wave. Soon, this tide will turn and they will be in trouble.

Here is a stock market example: Jack in the Box has grown 20% YTD while Qualcomm, is down about -10%. Doesn’t make sense. Burgers outpaces technology??[/quote]

It makes sense. The high tech business can be exported and must compete globally. The burger business can’t and doesn’t.[/quote]

Moderate hijack:

Actually, one of the speculations on why QC is getting hit is because their once bread and butter baseband chips (for which they use to be able to command hefty margins without competition) are now getting squeezed…Significantly…It use to be QC had the clear edge on be the best broadband chip and could command huge margins (take it or leave it)..Not so anymore….The asian manufacturers are putting the squeeze, even though other “competitors” don’t have a competing product, some of them I’m guessing is just saying “well, that thing costs a lot less, and it’s “good enough””. Hence, why I suspect QC’s margins on their flagship products are slipping.

BTW: You are pretty soon going to have a bunch of pissed of QC folks. For one, QC has a very nice health plan for most employees. Their plan is PPO, no payroll deductions from employees, and the coverage is generous…On top of that, if you happen to be above a certain level, there is a second “executive” health plan. I won’t go into details about that, but generally available to enginerds/directors+ above a certain level… Guess QC isn’t going to be eating this cost either so I would assume that will vaporize very soon. Expect a very large healthcare chargeoff very soon from QC and or an announcement saying they are cutting benefits…Significantly….

[Coronita]

[quote=sreeb][quote=Hobie]For me the stock market is not a good measure for good legislation. After all the insurance companies got everything they wanted and are riding the wave. Soon, this tide will turn and they will be in trouble.

Here is a stock market example: Jack in the Box has grown 20% YTD while Qualcomm, is down about -10%. Doesn’t make sense. Burgers outpaces technology??[/quote]

It makes sense. The high tech business can be exported and must compete globally. The burger business can’t and doesn’t.[/quote]

Moderate hijack:

Actually, one of the speculations on why QC is getting hit is because their once bread and butter baseband chips (for which they use to be able to command hefty margins without competition) are now getting squeezed…Significantly…It use to be QC had the clear edge on be the best broadband chip and could command huge margins (take it or leave it)..Not so anymore….The asian manufacturers are putting the squeeze, even though other “competitors” don’t have a competing product, some of them I’m guessing is just saying “well, that thing costs a lot less, and it’s “good enough””. Hence, why I suspect QC’s margins on their flagship products are slipping.

BTW: You are pretty soon going to have a bunch of pissed of QC folks. For one, QC has a very nice health plan for most employees. Their plan is PPO, no payroll deductions from employees, and the coverage is generous…On top of that, if you happen to be above a certain level, there is a second “executive” health plan. I won’t go into details about that, but generally available to enginerds/directors+ above a certain level… Guess QC isn’t going to be eating this cost either so I would assume that will vaporize very soon. Expect a very large healthcare chargeoff very soon from QC and or an announcement saying they are cutting benefits…Significantly….

[Author]

Posts