Posted on 03/27/2012 1:32:27 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D and David Asman discuss Romneycare and Obamacare.
Power and Money with David Asman
(Excerpt) Read more at defendyourhealthcare.com ...
Video at link
McCaughey has been DEAD ON about this POS law- she should have been governor instead of that loser she was Lt. Gov for (what was his name?- oh yeah... Pataki)
Lets say they are twins.
Perhaps not identical, but close enough it’s hard to tell the difference.
We need Newt, we may have to settle for Santorum, who could easily win election if he picked Newt as VP.The boy needs guidance.
They’re not exactly the same. Even if the wording of the law is identical, there is a definite Constitutional difference between a federal mandate and a State mandate. Federalism.
Romneycare was a inarguably lousy idea ... but was Constitutional. In that respect, and that respect alone, it is better than ObamaCare.
SnakeDoc
Yes, the founders would’ve found it Constititonal (with regard to the Federal Constitution, I don’t know about the Massachusetts Constitution).
The founders believed that the States should dictate their own course — and that States were the perfect grounds for experiments like this one. It is Constitutional for a State to choose socialist healthcare. They’d be wrong to do so. Anyone with any sense would leave the State to go somewhere better. But, it is Constitutional.
Consent of the governed ... if that’s what the whackos in Massachussetts want, let em have it.
SnakeDoc
And I’m sure the Founders would love the fact that the taxpayers in the rest of the country have to pay for Massachusetts’ little socialist project, never mind what the 50 dollar and free aborted babies think. /s
I don’t know how Massachussetts finances this little fiasco. As long as they steal from their rich to pay for their poor, it ain’t my problem. Federalism at its finest. I don’t have to give a damn.
I didn’t say it was right. I said it was Constitutional. the Constitution does not outlaw stupid ideas, particularly at the State level.
SnakeDoc
If we are paying for it and we don’t live in Mass., it’s not just a 10th amendment issue. More people have to wake up to the fact that there is more to Romneycare and Obamacare than just the state of Massachusetts.
Both are 100% commiecare, funded by you and me. Educate yourself. Take a look at this:
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/17/the-masscare-massacre
I am plenty educated. Thanks for the condescension, though.
I understand they’re commiecare. Commiecare is not unconstitutional when implemented on the State level.
Federal funding may be unconstitutional ... but that’s not an issue with the State law, its an issue with the federal one.
SnakeDoc
The problem with commiecare is calling it a 10th Amendment, states’ rights issue when it isn’t. If this commiecare actually involved the individual states alone, you could declare 10th Amendment rights. As long as the entire country is paying for it, it’s not a states’ rights issue.
I never said anything about the 10th amendment. You did. I said Massachussetts Commiecare wasn’t unconstitutional. It isn’t.
Show me the Constitutional clause that limits the power of the States to enact Commiecare. You can’t ... because there isn’t one.
The purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to limit the power of the Federal government. Most of the Constitution doesn’t even apply to the States. The Civil War amendments (13-15) allow for the incorporation of some of the Bill of Rights (1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc.). Before the Civil War, the Bill of Rights didn’t even apply to the States (they could squelch free speech, establish State religions, etc.).
There is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits a State mandate. It precludes a Federal mandate.
SnakeDoc
So you believe a program that relies on federal govt. funding to exist is constitutional because it has no federal involvement?
OK, no need to discuss anything with you anymore.
I asked you for the specific Constitutional provision that makes the Mass law unconstitutional.
You didn’t answer ... because there isn’t one.
“Unconstitutional” is a very technical term. It has meaning beyond just “bad law”. Not all bad ideas are unconstitutional. You may wish it was, but wishing doesn’t make it so.
States are not subject to the enumerated powers of the Federal Constitution. They are subject to a few of the amendments in the Bill of Rights — via the 14th Amendment — but none of them apply here.
Romney’s bad idea is fundamentally different from Obama’s bad idea insofar as it didn’t exceed his Constitutional authority. The people of Massachussetts apparently wanted this. Let ‘em have it.
SnakeDoc
So again as long as the 50 states create mandated programs, it is constitutional for the federal govt. to pay for them. As long as a state can get the federal govt. to pay for the mandated program it’s legal? You may like that cute way to skirt the law, but I think there may be some people who disagree.
Once again, I’m not paying for their communism. If you think it’s right for us to pay for the mandates, you can come up with the money yourself. Leave the federal govt. out of the mandate business.
Show me the Constitutional language that makes the Mass law unconstitutional. Put-up or shut-up.
Federal payment has to do with federal law, not State law. Federal subsidies may be unconstitutional, but that would overturn only the federal law that pays, not the State law creating the State mandate. The Constitutionality of payment is a separate issue from the Constitutionality of a State mandate.
State mandates are Constitutional.
SnakeDoc
I am glad to see you say that using federal money for this mandated program may be unconstitutional. It is the first thing you’ve stated that directly relates to the argument I’m making and have been making from the start.
For some reason, known only to you, you keep trying to drag me into a ridiculous discussion about Massachusetts constitutional law. You are the only one talking about it. I never mentioned it. I haven’t said a single thing about it. My argument is that Mitt’s mandated law requires federal money to function, which makes it illegal and not just a states’ rights issue. And any other state that enacts his law will have the same problem. The need for the use of federal funds makes it no longer a states’ rights issue. You yourself say that federal funds use could make it unconstitutional. So its good to see you are finally agreeing with me.
I have told you again and again. The problem with Mitt’s socialist Romneycare is that it is not just a states’ right issue because all the states are responsible for paying for it. You brought this up when you stated you don’t have a problem with the law if they tax their own rich. Your exact words: “As long as they steal from their rich to pay for their poor, it ain’t my problem.” So you already knew what I was talking about. Mitt’s law is grabbing federal tax dollars to pay for the program. They aren’t just taxing their own rich. They are using our tax money, so they are taxing everyone.
All I’ve said to you, repeatedly, is that the use of federal money to fund the program makes it more than just a states’ right issue. You yourself have stated that this brings up a constitutionality concern.
Now you put up or shut up. Show me where I’ve even mentioned anything about Massachusetts law. Either stop trying to put words into my posts or go your own way. I don’t care about the Massachusetts’ law problem; that is your fetish. So go look it up for yourself. I care about the fact that my tax dollars go to paying for Mitt’s commie mess and it needs to stop.
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.