Democrats open to replacing Obamacare

politico ^ | 12/15/16 | Burgess Everett and Jennifer Haberkorn

[ColdOne]

Senate Democrats will never vote to repeal Obamacare. But once the deed is done, a surprising number of them say they’re open to helping Republicans replace it.

“If it makes sense, I think there’ll be a lot of Democrats who would be for it,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

As Republicans aim to make good on their years-long vow to quash Obamacare and replace it with their own health care vision, they’ll have to do something Democrats were never able to: Bring members of the opposing party on board. Enacting any substantive alternative will take at least eight Democratic votes in the Senate.

[katykelly]

Tort reform .

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Replace Obamacare with Trumpcare—The health care of 2007 with a provision for the really poor. No free rides for anyone. The old care for the majority—Cuba Care for the poor, down and out, drug addicts, and layabouts.

[Pollster1]

True!

[arthurus]

Replacing Obamacare is simply renaming it and changing around some of the provisions. To do something constructive to return affordability to Medicine we have to simply terminate all Federal Government involvement in Medicine and in Insurance. Repeal and Replace means making it all more compatible and more remunerative to the Elite which includes, of course, the politicians.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article ColdOne. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

As mentioned in related threads, the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes. (This is evidenced by the excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions at the bottom of this post.)

In other words, unconstitutional Obamacare is an example of the corrupt, unconstitutionally big federal government trying to rob the states blind imo.

In fact, former Speaker Pelosi wrongly ignored a resolution for a healthcare amendment to the Constitution when she irresponsibly rammed unconstitutional Obamacare through the House.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality. —H. J. Res. 30.

Also, using wide language, a previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the feds are prohibited from regulating, taxing and spending in the name of INTRAstate issues.

• “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.

• ”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.

After patriots work with Trump to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes indicated by the Gibbons excerpt above, the indivdual states can use the resulting tsunami of new state revenues to experiment with their own healthcare programs, ultimately depending on what the legal majority voters of a given state want.

"The States should be left to do whatever acts they can do as well as the General Government." --Thomas Jefferson to John Harvie, 1790.

But should the states eventually decide that it would be better if the feds managed a national healthcare program, then there is nothing stopping the states from appropriately amending the Constitution.

Below are more excerpts of Supreme Court justices clarifying that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes.

Considering the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the third entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. In that case, justices had clarified that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.

• "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.

• "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 within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphasis added] 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.