No one's life, liberty or property is safe while Congress is making laws. Mark Twain
Posted on 03/27/2015 8:45:40 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
Agreed!
Well, it would be nice if we finally had a free market; we've never had one before.
the insurance lobby demands it.
No one's life, liberty or property is safe while Congress is making laws. Mark Twain
Freedom to buy insurance or not buy insurance,
Freedom to pay more for pay for every thing plans
Freedom to pay less for pay for only catastrophic conditions
Freedom for insurance plans to deny coverage to people who were already sick, hurt or ill prior to getting coverage.
Freedom for the insurance companies to cover any thing or nothing and set their own prices based on what people are willing and able to pay.
The alternative plan is FREEDOM!
Nothing else is necessary.
Well, on second thought ONE law is needed.
Insurance companies need to be able to drop those with preexisting conditions they were forced to take after Obamacare passed!
As FReepers read the following material, consider that the feds would probably have never criminally established Obamacare outside the framework of the Constitution if weren’t for the ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A), state lawmakers foolishly giving up the voices of state lawmakers in Congress when they ratified it.
Regarding Sen. Ryan’s guidance about GOP's Obamacare replacement, and with all due respect to mom & pop, as a consequence of Sen. Ryan's parents evidently not making sure that their son was taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, Sen. Ryan doesn’t seem to understand the following. The states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes. This is evidenced by the excerpts below from Supreme Court case opinions.
Since the Supreme Court is now deciding the constitutionality of the Obamacare insurance mandate, especially note the fourth entry in the list concerning Paul v. Virginia (Paul). The Paul excerpt indicates that the Supreme Court has historically clariifed that insurance policies are contracts, not commerce, Congress therefore having no Commerce Clause power to regulate insurance policies, regardless if such policies are negotiated across state borders.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
”4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
Also note that regardless that federal Democrats, RINOs, corrupt justices and indoctrinated attorneys will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that the feds can’t do something then they can do it, the Supreme Court has addressed that foolish idea too. Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (5.2) aside, the Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate healthcare in this case, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
So if Sen. Ryan really wants the GOP to establish its Obamacare replacement within the framework of the Constitution then this is what he must do. Ryan must rally both Houses of Congress to propose a healthcare amendment to the Constitution to the states. And if the state’s choose to ratify Ryan’s amendment then the GOP will actually have the the constitutional authority that it needs to establish their Obamacare replacement and Sen. Ryan will be a hero.
Getting back to 17A, again, consider if that amendment hadn’t been ratified, effectively repealing the Constitution imo, then not only would Obamacare probably not been wrongly established outside the framework of the Constitution, but with all due respect to Constitution-respecting justices there would probably be all different faces on the Supreme Court at this time.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.
Just as they managed to repeal another bad idea: Prohibition, the 18th amendment, just repeal Obamacare in toto. (And Dorothy too.)
And the 17th. Juan McCain: QED.
A valid debate is whether the “interstate commerce” clause allows federal legislation prohibiting what amounts to systemic abuse of customers in an industry, situations where shady/underhanded/malicious practices are legal but create an advantage that all other competitors must implement because good behavior is relatively costly and cannot be made up for by other means, resulting in systemic problems throughout the industry.
Example: for a long time, ALL banks would daily apply your debits to your bank account, issue a fine if it resulted in a negative balance, _then_ apply any credits for the day. As in: you had $10 in your bank account, deposited $100, then made a debit-card purchase for $100 ... you’d get dinged with a $35 fine for a $90 over-draw. I had this happen numerous times; the bank would happily correct the issue IF I called, but relied on huge profits from bad accounting practices which ALL banks followed. Switching to a competitor didn’t work because they’d do the same thing. Switching to a “no overdraft protection” service didn’t work because the alternative was checks bouncing outright (for which you can get legally hit up for 3x the amount). No bank would stop doing it because of the enormous revenue they’d miss out on, in return for a paltry increase in customers. It took federal legislation to say “stop that you idiots, apply the debits AND the credits BEFORE issuing fees/fines.”
Same kind of thing for numerous other issues & industries: feds on occasion have to step in to stop bad practices businesses can’t get out of because it’s systemic in the industry. They do it via “interstate commerce” clause, insisting that if you’re going to work across state lines you have to be fair to customers (at least in theory).
So ... is that a valid application of the “interstate commerce” (and arguably “general welfare”) clause? Does the gov’t have a proper role in telling all businesses in an industry to stop doing something harmful to customers because doing right is, in some situations, not competitive and not viable even if they want to do it right - so the feds can demand all shape up all at once? If “yes”, might something similar apply to “pre-existing conditions” in healthcare? If “no”, then what _does_ the “interstate commerce” clause refer to?
The idea that a capitalist system instrisically rips off the consumer unless the government makes heroic efforts to save us is hogwash. It is the government propping up cronyism and erecting enormous barriers to entry and operation at a smaller level that allow customers to be taken advantage of. Ayn Rand: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control."
That’s not the question I asked.
If health insurance companies can’t sell across state lines, then how does “interstate commerce” even apply? It doesn’t, therefore the feds have no say in the matter - at least not in a nation where the U.S. Constitution still means anything.
Speaking of Dorothy, I wish that we could just throw a bucket of water on 17A. ;^)
A point I’ve oft noted and heard little about. I’m surprised Obamacare hasn’t been thrown out completely on grounds that the feds can’t ban interstate commerce for a business category AND regulate that category on the grounds that such interstate commerce exists when by law it is purely intra-state. Seems like a slam-dunk SCOTUS case to me.
In keeping with that I see a much more minimalist interpretation of the commerce clause, where the government only works to stop wrong doing. As anyone might like to use the government as a club to enforce fairness it a. will not work, and b. is open to the whims of the current bureaucrats what fair means. Everyone has different ideas of fair.
Michelle Obama asks if it is ‘fair’ that food deserts (not desserts thought she is against those too) exist. For a while we heard about the ‘unfairness’ of the evil oil companies charging so much. I need not elaborate on the host laws and quotas enforced to achieve racial fairness. The government has decided in the interest of fairness has decided to pass law with no input from the representatives of the people with Net Neutrality. Every effort to use the might of the government to 'fix' the systems tends to break it, raise prices, and put money in the pockets of politicians and their cronies. We have had enough of that with Obamacare we don't; need a replacement that raises prices and put money in some Republicans pocket instead of some Democrats.
In short telling people what they can/must buy or sell are not a legitimate use of the government as envisioned by the founding fathers and codified by the constitution.
Incidentally, as the current laws prevents people from buying insurance in another state, I fail to see how if falls under the jurisdiction of interstate commerce. As for the founders intention. This paper from Dr. Randy E. Barnett gets far more technical and uses far more of the founders quotes, ideas, and understanding than I can off the top of my head. Interesting reading: http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm
I generally agree with you. Just not sure how to deal with situations where an industry gets stuck on stupid, chronically abusing customers, and can’t get itself out of the systemic trap, and customers have no options because non-abusive service is too costly. Sometimes an industry needs a slap upside the head, all at once, to get everyone past that bad behavior.
Yeah, there’s the problem of it being abused (much as Obamacare and Obamalunches do). Boils down to whether the compulsion leaves participants better or worse off: improved banking practices decreases harm; compelling stores into “food deserts” just increases shoplifting etc.
Yes, the ban on interstate commerce in health insurance (A) must be ended, and (B) precludes federal regulation until (A) occurs. I’m surprised nobody has pursued that angle to SCOTUS.
Question remains: what IS a valid exercise of the “interstate commerce” clause?
I’ll read the link.
rino kabuki continues. i guess it’s fundraising time again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.