Comments on: Senate Dems. moving the goal posts on the public option

By: Kyle Brady: Blog - Legitimate Healthcare Reform Is Fading Fast

Kyle Brady: Blog - Legitimate Healthcare Reform Is Fading Fast — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:58:35 +0000

[...] on the proposal, from a federal public option. Among proposals such as the public option becoming a state-level enterprise, the lack of backbone by many Democratic Congressmen has been shown, since the country’s citizens [...]

By: “Opt out”, sheep in wolf’s clothing ~ BrianInNYC « The BackChannel Blog

Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:39:23 +0000

[...] Senate Dems. moving the goal posts on the public option [...]

By: Rick Ungar

Rick Ungar — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:28:28 +0000

Kind of a different issue on the crossing state lines thing. More than likely, states would effectuate such a plan by opening their state employees health care program to other state residents. This would become pretty unmanageable if the states were to allow residents from other states to participate. It would also go against the purpose of the federal law. So, I think it is highly unlikely that a resident in Kentucky could sign up in California. Also keep in mind that most coverage programs only involve providers in the state where the coverage originates with the exception of emergencies which occur when you are out of state. Thus, that fellow in Kentucky who gets coverage in California would have to travel to California whenever he wants to see a doctor, unless it is an emergency.

By: Brian In NYC

Brian In NYC — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:28:11 +0000

“You might have more influence over people like Brian”

Don’t bet the vacation home on that one Rick!

By: Brian In NYC

Brian In NYC — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:14:24 +0000

In the last post we went over this I sited several legal cases where the SC ruled against your understanding of the 10th. Not surprisingly you chose to ignore it. Bottom line, you’re wrong, and if think this is any court is going to rule against the fed establishing a national health care program I suggest (respectfully of course) you demand a refund on your law school tuition.

By: Rick Ungar

Rick Ungar — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:06:30 +0000

You have done exactly that. But as I have noted in some of your other posts, you lay out your Constitutional arguments as “givens” when you and I both no that there is no such thing. I do wish you would more honestly present your arguments as one side of the argument. You might have more influence over people like Brian if you didn’t try to fool them into believing that your statements of Con. Law are absolutely the only interpretation when you know otherwise.

By: rockyinlaw

rockyinlaw — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:05:41 +0000

You’ve made it sound as if the Dems were making up this “option” thing from scratch, when you know that we have all the rest of the developed world, and a U.S. state or two as well, to refer to for what works and what doesn’t in health care and health insurance.

What I see is that Washington has left it to the states to do as they will for decades now. And still tens of thousands of our citizens are dying because of lack of health insurance. I know that can’t be okay with you, even if they are dying Constitutionally. The people are weeping, Mr Dupray …

By: Rick Ungar

Rick Ungar — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:04:11 +0000

Bill – again, you are trying to insert your interpretation of what the founders intended as the final word. You look pretty young to me, so I’m guessing you were not there.
For starters, there is little evidence to reveal that founders intended the states to operate as 50 democratic laboratories. While I have always liked and supported that approach, we should not credit the concept where it does not belong.

I do agree that the nation was founded on the idea of limited federal government, however we know a few things about this, historically. First, not all the founders and early leaders of the nation saw it this way nor interpreted the Constitution this way. Some did…some didn’t. Secondly, as the experiment has progressed, we have found that this doesn’t always serve the best interests of the people and that there is, according to numerous incarnations of the Supreme Court, room in the Constitution to allow variances from a concept that was never intended as an “off limits” rule.
I know we would disagree on whether the Constitution was created to be a static “bible” of American democracy or a living, breathing instrument. I suspect you would see it more as the first while I the second. Either way, there have been times in our history where the federal approach has better served the people. Could there be social security on a state by state basis? Unlikely. Yet this federal program has greatly improved the lives of our elderly, a responsibility any great nation should honor. Doesn’t health care fall into that category? Clearly, the founders did not intend health care to be a right – it is a privilege. But what is wrong with a wealthy nation using its collective power and wealth to improve the lives of its citizens.
With all respect, I think the problem you run into is your focus on ideology blinds to the needs of the humans you believe you are protecting. I respect the fact that you believe that you are protecting the rights of the individual – and I believe you are sincere. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that protecting individual rights is inconsistent with providing other benefits to Americans.

All that said, you’ve kind of gone off point. Tell us why you think a real public option is such a bad thing for Americans?

By: Bill Dupray

Bill Dupray — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:44:11 +0000

Brian, we already went round and round with this in another post. I said then that you (respectfully) have no frickin’ idea what you are talking about. You have cited no authority for your 14th Amendment argument. I am not going to argue the Constitution with you if you cannot come up with a Constitutional argument.

I have laid out in several comments and posts exactly why a piece of legislation is Constitutional or not. My argument is always based on the language of the Constitution and the jurisprudence behind it.

If you would like to do the same, I would be happy to discuss it with you.

By: Brian In NYC

Brian In NYC — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:22:12 +0000

“The idea is that we have 50 democratic laboratories where people decide what laws they should live under. This, by definition, will mean more people will be living under laws that they deem fair and just.”

Not exactly true, especially since ratification of the 14th. You’re repeated clinging to the 10th just doesn’t stand up to historical muster. Also your repeated stating that if it’s not in the Constitution the fed is prohibiting in engaging in certain activities doesn’t hold up either.