8 Facts That Prove the Tea Party Is Ignorant of the U.S. Constitution

Dixie said:
I never have understood the mandate to cover pre-existing conditions. If you are obtaining insurance to cover a condition that already exists, you aren't really purchasing 'insurance' are you? Insurance is supposed to 'insure' you are protected in case something happens, not pay for something that has already occurred. You can't wait until you have a car wreck, then call the insurance agent and buy insurance to cover your damages. You can't call and get fire insurance as your house burns to the ground... why should you be able to get health 'insurance' to cover some health condition that already exists? And if that IS the case, doesn't the insurance provider have to compensate for the unlimited liability by charging higher premiums?

What we have is, a bunch of emotive liberal Utopian dreamers, who expect "the government" to just provide everything our hearts desire, based on sheer emotion and ignorance of economics. You expect capitalists to not make profit, yet still risk their money to invest in business and create jobs. You expect wealthy people to forfeit most of their income, while continuing to go out there and earn incomes. You expect doctors and hospitals to work for free, because they love helping sick people. You expect the military to protect us from our enemies without any funding... And here, you expect insurance companies, who offer a product, to change the parameters of risk vs. cost, because you think it's possible to have everyone covered by insurance for every possible condition and every possible circumstance. Somehow, you have deduced that such an idea will bring down the cost of health care, even though, nothing has been done to even begin to address the cost of health care, and the measures you are implementing will drive up the cost of insurance to the point no one can afford it. Then, we'll have to depend on government to dispense health care.
Click to expand...

That is one of the aims of the regulation; the regulation can't be said to be effective if it doesn't reduce the cost of healthcare. Coverage was being denied for pre-existing conditions because people were getting funds from a system they hadn't paid into, which would increase the cost of healthcare for those in the system. In order to both make sure that patients aren't discriminated against and reduce the cost of healthcare, a mandate is necessary... not just convenient. Again, In order for the regulation - prohibiting denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions - to be effective, the mandate is necessary. The Necessary and Proper Clause allows the Federal Government to go beyond the scope of it's authority if doing so is necessary to make a particular legitimate regulation effective.
 
Southern Chicken said:
That is one of the aims of the regulation; the regulation can't be said to be effective if it doesn't reduce the cost of healthcare. Coverage was being denied for pre-existing conditions because people were getting funds from a system they hadn't paid into, which would increase the cost of healthcare for those in the system. In order to both make sure that patients aren't discriminated against and reduce the cost of healthcare, a mandate is necessary... not just convenient. Again, In order for the regulation - prohibiting denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions - to be effective, the mandate is necessary. The Necessary and Proper Clause allows the Federal Government to go beyond the scope of it's authority if doing so is necessary to make a particular legitimate regulation effective.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about, people were getting funds from a system they hadn't paid into? Insurance companies would not cover conditions which already existed, you can't possibly 'insure' something that has already happened. If you change the rules and make that mandatory, then the insurance company must account for the dramatic increase in cost, by charging higher premiums. If auto insurance worked the same way, it would be almost impossible to afford car insurance, because the insurance company would have to cover accidents AFTER THE FACT! No one would bother purchasing car insurance until they had a wreck, then they would pay the initial premium and file their claim! Therefore, the average premium would likely have to be the average cost of a new car, as this would be the only way the insurance company could stay in business.

Again, the N&P clause is ONLY implementable for the enumerated powers outlined in Article 1 Section 8, and to claim otherwise, nullifies the purpose and intent of Article 1 Section 8 in its entirety. Congress has the authority to pass regulations for things outlined in Article 1 Section 8, under the condition it is necessary and proper to execute their enumerated powers, and nothing more. What you wish to argue, defies logic and rationality, and Madison said as much. He clearly stated, if the general clauses were intended to give Congress such power, the whole Constitution should be cast into the fire! This is because, such an authority would essentially nullify the Constitution, and Congress could simply deem anything they pleased to be "for the common good" or "general welfare" or "necessary and proper." This was certainly NOT what was intended!
 
Dixie said:
What the hell are you talking about, people were getting funds from a system they hadn't paid into? Insurance companies would not cover conditions which already existed, you can't possibly 'insure' something that has already happened. If you change the rules and make that mandatory, then the insurance company must account for the dramatic increase in cost, by charging higher premiums. If auto insurance worked the same way, it would be almost impossible to afford car insurance, because the insurance company would have to cover accidents AFTER THE FACT! No one would bother purchasing car insurance until they had a wreck, then they would pay the initial premium and file their claim! Therefore, the average premium would likely have to be the average cost of a new car, as this would be the only way the insurance company could stay in business.

Again, the N&P clause is ONLY implementable for the enumerated powers outlined in Article 1 Section 8, and to claim otherwise, nullifies the purpose and intent of Article 1 Section 8 in its entirety. Congress has the authority to pass regulations for things outlined in Article 1 Section 8, under the condition it is necessary and proper to execute their enumerated powers, and nothing more. What you wish to argue, defies logic and rationality, and Madison said as much. He clearly stated, if the general clauses were intended to give Congress such power, the whole Constitution should be cast into the fire! This is because, such an authority would essentially nullify the Constitution, and Congress could simply deem anything they pleased to be "for the common good" or "general welfare" or "necessary and proper." This was certainly NOT what was intended!
Click to expand...

Pre-existing conditions was at the discretion of the insurance companies---http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/healthinsurancebasics/a/preexisting_conditions_overview.htm

and
http://ibdcrohns.about.com/od/mentalhealth/f/pre-existing-condition.htm

In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a law that provides some protection for you and your family members when you need to buy, change, or continue your health insurance. These protections include:

•Limits on the use of pre-existing condition exclusions.
•Prevents many health plans from discriminating against you by denying you coverage or charging you more for coverage based on your or a family member's health problems.
•Most of the time guarantees that if you lose your job and your coverage, you have the right to purchase health insurance for you and your family.
•Usually guarantees that if you purchase health insurance, you can renew your coverage regardless of any health conditions in your family.


If you have problems with the Act, please contact your nearest politician.

And AGAIN---
Also Dixie re-read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

"The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers, provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution."
 
Southern Chicken said:
That is one of the aims of the regulation; the regulation can't be said to be effective if it doesn't reduce the cost of healthcare.
Click to expand...

disagree completely. regulation doesn't (and never has been) historically used to reduce prices. the founders free market views would not permit that, in my opinion. regulation was to ensure that no state could hold penalties against another and was later used to ensure that at least everyone had a fair shot at business and commerce.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
disagree completely. regulation doesn't (and never has been) historically used to reduce prices. the founders free market views would not permit that, in my opinion. regulation was to ensure that no state could hold penalties against another and was later used to ensure that at least everyone had a fair shot at business and commerce.
Click to expand...

How much would it cost the government to regulate the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions? That is why I said the cost of healthcare. Paying a premium, one pays into a system to cover future healthcare costs. The mandate does not make the regulation cheaper. This isn't about the cost of regulating, it's about the cost of healthcare... and in order for the regulation to be effective at dealing with that, the mandate is necessary.. It is also about eliminating denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions? which both are a legitimate end under the Commerce Clause
 
Southern Chicken said:
How much would it cost the government to regulate the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions? That is why I said the cost of healthcare. Paying a premium, one pays into a system to cover future healthcare costs. The mandate does not make the regulation cheaper. This isn't about the cost of regulating, it's about the cost of healthcare... and in order for the regulation to be effective at dealing with that, the mandate is necessary.. It is also about eliminating denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions? which both are a legitimate end under the Commerce Clause
Click to expand...

Uhm... Regulating or mandating health care INSURANCE has absolutely NOTHING to do with the cost of health CARE! It's two entirely and completely different things. Nothing in ObamaCare addresses anything about the cost of health care, it simply shifts the burden of the cost. Since it shifts the burden away from the consumer, and to the government, the insurance companies, and employers, the result are, higher taxes, higher insurance premiums and fewer jobs.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Pre-existing conditions was at the discretion of the insurance companies---http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/healthinsurancebasics/a/preexisting_conditions_overview.htm

and
http://ibdcrohns.about.com/od/mentalhealth/f/pre-existing-condition.htm

In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a law that provides some protection for you and your family members when you need to buy, change, or continue your health insurance. These protections include:

•Limits on the use of pre-existing condition exclusions.
•Prevents many health plans from discriminating against you by denying you coverage or charging you more for coverage based on your or a family member's health problems.
•Most of the time guarantees that if you lose your job and your coverage, you have the right to purchase health insurance for you and your family.
•Usually guarantees that if you purchase health insurance, you can renew your coverage regardless of any health conditions in your family.


If you have problems with the Act, please contact your nearest politician.

And AGAIN---
Also Dixie re-read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

"The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers, provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution."
Click to expand...

Again, we are debating two completely different arguments here. There is what is 'constitutional' based on court interpretations, and what is intended to be constitutional by the framers of the constitution. Citing SCOTUS cases is not proof that the founding fathers intended this interpretation, and it is silly to argue that is the case. How many times throughout history, have we seen the SCOTUS make an erroneous ruling, completely defying what the original intent of the Constitution was?
 
Dixie said:
Uhm... Regulating or mandating health care INSURANCE has absolutely NOTHING to do with the cost of health CARE! It's two entirely and completely different things. Nothing in ObamaCare addresses anything about the cost of health care, it simply shifts the burden of the cost. Since it shifts the burden away from the consumer, and to the government, the insurance companies, and employers, the result are, higher taxes, higher insurance premiums and fewer jobs.
Click to expand...

Then I guess you will put that in your complaint to your local congressman....Make sure you sign it as per Dixie's opinion
 
Southern Chicken said:
Then I guess you will put that in your complaint to your local congressman....Make sure you sign it as per Dixie's opinion
Click to expand...

Trust me, my local representatives know me on a first name basis and recognize my number when I call now. In watching the Tea Party rallies across the nation, I have a feeling I am not the only one of this opinion, and I think very soon, you are going to see the political ramifications of that.
 
Dixie said:
Again, we are debating two completely different arguments here. There is what is 'constitutional' based on court interpretations, and what is intended to be constitutional by the framers of the constitution. Citing SCOTUS cases is not proof that the founding fathers intended this interpretation, and it is silly to argue that is the case. How many times throughout history, have we seen the SCOTUS make an erroneous ruling, completely defying what the original intent of the Constitution was?
Click to expand...
Dixie, just in case you didnt know this is how it Currently work----

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/branches.htm

The United States has three branches of government: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. Each of these branches has a distinct and essential role in the function of the government, and they were established in Articles 1 (legislative), 2 (executive) and 3 (judicial) of the U.S. Constitution.

The Executive Branch
The executive branch consists of the president, vice president and 15 Cabinet-level departments such as State, Defense, Interior, Transportation and Education. The primary power of the executive branch rests with the president, who chooses his vice president, and his Cabinet members who head the respective departments. A crucial function of the executive branch is to ensure that laws are carried out and enforced to facilitate such day-to-day responsibilities of the federal government as collecting taxes, safeguarding the homeland and representing the United States' political and economic interests around the world.

The Legislative Branch
The legislative branch consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives, collectively known as the Congress. There are 100 senators; each state has two. Each state has a different number of representatives, with the number determined by the state's population. At present, there are 435 members of the House. The legislative branch, as a whole, is charged with passing the nation's laws and allocating funds for the running of the federal government and providing assistance to the 50 U.S. states.

The Judicial Branch
The judicial branch consists of the United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts. Its primary function is to hear cases that challenge legislation or require interpretation of that legislation. The U.S. Supreme Court has nine Justices, who are chosen by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and have a lifetime appointment.
 
Dixie said:
Trust me, my local representatives know me on a first name basis and recognize my number when I call now. In watching the Tea Party rallies across the nation, I have a feeling I am not the only one of this opinion, and I think very soon, you are going to see the political ramifications of that.
Click to expand...

I am proud of you, Dixie!!!!
 
Southern Chicken said:
Dixie, just in case you didnt know this is how it Currently work----

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/branches.htm

The United States has three branches of government: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. Each of these branches has a distinct and essential role in the function of the government, and they were established in Articles 1 (legislative), 2 (executive) and 3 (judicial) of the U.S. Constitution.

The Executive Branch
The executive branch consists of the president, vice president and 15 Cabinet-level departments such as State, Defense, Interior, Transportation and Education. The primary power of the executive branch rests with the president, who chooses his vice president, and his Cabinet members who head the respective departments. A crucial function of the executive branch is to ensure that laws are carried out and enforced to facilitate such day-to-day responsibilities of the federal government as collecting taxes, safeguarding the homeland and representing the United States' political and economic interests around the world.

The Legislative Branch
The legislative branch consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives, collectively known as the Congress. There are 100 senators; each state has two. Each state has a different number of representatives, with the number determined by the state's population. At present, there are 435 members of the House. The legislative branch, as a whole, is charged with passing the nation's laws and allocating funds for the running of the federal government and providing assistance to the 50 U.S. states.

The Judicial Branch
The judicial branch consists of the United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts. Its primary function is to hear cases that challenge legislation or require interpretation of that legislation. The U.S. Supreme Court has nine Justices, who are chosen by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and have a lifetime appointment.
Click to expand...

I don't need lessons in how government works, I am well aware of this. It does not diminish my point, the SCOTUS is not the empirical authority of what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution. They give an OPINION as to what they THINK the founders may have meant, and sometimes they are completely wrong... like when they determined the founding fathers intended slaves to be property and not people! Like when they determined that minorities could be denied voting rights! So, as I correctly stated, we have two completely different arguments going here... what is constitutional according to SCOTUS rulings, and what is constitutional according to the framers. Which argument would you like to pursue, because we can't ever resolve both at the same time, it's not possible.
 
Southern Chicken said:
How much would it cost the government to regulate the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions? That is why I said the cost of healthcare. Paying a premium, one pays into a system to cover future healthcare costs. The mandate does not make the regulation cheaper. This isn't about the cost of regulating, it's about the cost of healthcare... and in order for the regulation to be effective at dealing with that, the mandate is necessary.. It is also about eliminating denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions? which both are a legitimate end under the Commerce Clause
Click to expand...

criminalizing the denial of pre-existing conditions can be accomplished under the ADA, instead of the commerce clause.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
criminalizing the denial of pre-existing conditions can be accomplished under the ADA, instead of the commerce clause.
Click to expand...

Well, if Dixie ran the legislative branch, He could/will propose such an endeavor. This Congress didn't. The two aims of the law regarding pre-existing conditions are legitimate and withing the scope of Constitutional authority. It is not the role of the courts to use the argument, "Well, there's another way to do it, so you have to do it that way," in order to rule the mandate unconstitutional. That is legislating from the bench. The only questions are Are the aims put forth for preventing denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions within the scope of Constitutional authority? and Is the mandate necessary in order to support that law?
 
Dixie said:
I don't need lessons in how government works, I am well aware of this. It does not diminish my point, the SCOTUS is not the empirical authority of what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution. They give an OPINION as to what they THINK the founders may have meant, and sometimes they are completely wrong... like when they determined the founding fathers intended slaves to be property and not people! Like when they determined that minorities could be denied voting rights! So, as I correctly stated, we have two completely different arguments going here... what is constitutional according to SCOTUS rulings, and what is constitutional according to the framers. Which argument would you like to pursue, because we can't ever resolve both at the same time, it's not possible.
Click to expand...

Strawman--
Note*By that I mean in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top