Republicans' Replacement Healthcare Plan

[firstandten]

firstandten, How is Vermont having a single payer plan, which I mentioned twice, more Darwinian than Obamacare? The wording of the 10th Amendment, mentioned in post #13, pretty much rules out the federal government from taking over 1/6 of the economy because broad health care programs, be they Republican or Democratic, are not delegated powers of the federal government. End of story. Either come up with something like Romneycare or Vermont's effort to institute a single payer plan or amend the Constitution to allow the federal government to have Obamacare. We have Badgercare, a limited State program, in Wisconsin for poor people and you have never heard me badmouth it.

Ok, so what you are saying is that the Repubs replacement health care plan for Americans should be determined solely by the individual states or a states right issue as defined by the 10th amendment. Whether it takes the form of Romneycare in Mass or single payer in Vermont, or Badgercare in Wisc. as a libertarian who leans Repub it wouldn't bother you.

What if the SC rules Obamacare constitutional would it make a difference ?

What if we make all social safety net issues a states rights issue ?

Think that will go over well with the majority of American's ?

Maybe the Repubs will put that on their platform at the convention

[ghettopalmetto]

gp, You're altogether too into calling names tonight. please point out where I attacked ideas of Nixon as a socialist to retain some of your credibility. I never mentioned the Heritage Foundation. You did. Romney care is not Obamacare. They are similar but one is run by a State and the other by the Federal government which is a huge difference to me. I would characterize Nixon as having corporatist tendencies, as sort of an early neocon, but not as a socialist were you to have asked.

The Affordable Health Care Act, the one you know and love for its individual mandate, was based on ideas proposed by Richard Nixon in the 1970s. You'll note that Candidate Obama opposed such a mandate in 2008 when it was part of Hillary Clinton's proposed health care reform.

According to Harvard Law professor Einar Elhauge, however, the idea for an individual health insurance mandate dates to 1790.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/healthcare/Individual-mandate-traced-to-our-founding-fathers.html

That's fact, regardless of what you've convinced yourself. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

[oladub]

firstandten: Ok, so what you are saying is that the Repubs replacement health care plan for Americans should be determined solely by the individual states or a states right issue as defined by the 10th amendment. Whether it takes the form of Romneycare in Mass or single payer in Vermont, or Badgercare in Wisc. as a libertarian who leans Repub it wouldn't bother you.

Correct. What people in VT or MA choose to do is their business. If it works out; great, maybe WI will copy it. I wouldn't mind Badgercare being expanded either. It's a health care plan no one complains about.

What if the SC rules Obamacare constitutional would it make a difference ?

What if we make all social safety net issues a states rights issue ?

Think that will go over well with the majority of American's ?

Maybe the Repubs will put that on their platform at the convention

The Supreme Court determines the law of the land and government guns support it. Force is always the ultimate basis of rule. There is not much you or I can do about it if the SC says that corporations are people or that 2 + 2 = 5 except to vote in representatives who will appoint better justices. All social safety net issues will never be a states rights issue because there are a lot of powers delegated to the federal government such as defending the country and providing some parts of an infrastructure not to mention providing for the needs of veterans. I don't think that the unemployment, the wars, people losing their homes while bankers get bailouts is going over so good either with the average American.

[oladub]

The Affordable Health Care Act, the one you know and love for its individual mandate, was based on ideas proposed by Richard Nixon in the 1970s. You'll note that Candidate Obama opposed such a mandate in 2008 when it was part of Hillary Clinton's proposed health care reform.

According to Harvard Law professor Einar Elhauge, however, the idea for an individual health insurance mandate dates to 1790.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/healthcare/Individual-mandate-traced-to-our-founding-fathers.html

That's fact, regardless of what you've convinced yourself. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

First you are accusing me of calling Nixon a socialist without supporting evidence and now you are going on about Nixon again. Is Nixon tonight's theme?. What is it with Harvard "Constitutional scholars"? Seaman had been impressed into the British Navy when captured, they worked in proximity of the US Navy, and as recently as when I was a seaman [[Great Lakes only) there was a law that would fly back US sailors who got drunk and didn't make it back to their ships in time for free*. The law explained that seamen were considered "childlike". More importantly, only the federal government is delegated with war powers, foreign commerce, and foreign relations all of which effect seamen. I really don't see how being impressed into the British navy, getting caught up in crossfires, and foreign considerations is related to Obamacare. Sailors, during a war might as well be part of the Navy except without all the weapons.

I hope you don't run into a US embassy and claim that because sailors get free flights that you should too if you missed your flight not that it would make any less sense than the Harvard "constitutional scholar"*.

[firstandten]

In reviewing the article posted by Maxx it seems that House Repubs do want to come up with policy relating to health care to throw at Obama on the campaign trail.

They said they would come up with something by Memorial Day. I betting what they come up with will be laughable. I'm betting they didn't want to come up with anything.. after all its easlier to throw stones at a house than to build one. However the pressure to produce a plan is making them meet behind closed doors to come up with something. Then they will get there surrogates to throw up some fuzzy numbers tell a few lies and hope the American public buys it.

Better yet why don't they just take Oladub's libertarian stance... its a states rights issue. Sounds like a good default position to take on public policy issues you don't want to address.

[ghettopalmetto]

First you are accusing me of calling Nixon a socialist without supporting evidence and now you are going on about Nixon again. Is Nixon tonight's theme?. What is it with Harvard "Constitutional scholars"? Seaman had been impressed into the British Navy when captured, they worked in proximity of the US Navy, and as recently as when I was a seaman [[Great Lakes only) there was a law that would fly back US sailors who got drunk and didn't make it back to their ships in time for free*. The law explained that seamen were considered "childlike". More importantly, only the federal government is delegated with war powers, foreign commerce, and foreign relations all of which effect seamen. I really don't see how being impressed into the British navy, getting caught up in crossfires, and foreign considerations is related to Obamacare. Sailors, during a war might as well be part of the Navy except without all the weapons.

I hope you don't run into a US embassy and claim that because sailors get free flights that you should too if you missed your flight not that it would make any less sense than the Harvard "constitutional scholar"*.

If at first you don't succeed: obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.

When are you going to address FACTS relevant to your opinion?