And now it's time for some Santorum...

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by bwalker42

A bit moving, don't you think?

Certainly supports the attitude of those who refer to him as a jerkoff.

[PBzeer]

Of course, some may get a bit more bothered when it comes to:

"The Secretary shall develop oral healthcare components that shall include tooth-level surveillance."

No, that's no a joke. Just one of the 700 "shall's" in Obamacare. Along with the 200 "may's" and 139 "determines".

Not only will you be legally required to have insurance, but it will be the insurance they decide you should have. Just keep telling yourself, they know best.

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by bubb2

Benjamin Franklin helped found the insurance industry in the United States in 1752 with the Philadelphia Contributionship for the Insurance of Houses from Loss by Fire. The current state insurance regulatory framework has its roots in the 19th century with New Hampshire appointing the first insurance commissioner in 1851. Insurance regulators’ responsibilities grew in scope and complexity as the industry evolved. Congress adopted the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945 to affirm that the continued regulation of the insurance industry by the states was in the public’s best interest.

Continued, yes, because the Supreme Court ruled that insurance is covered by the Commerce Clause. Without the act, the states claimed they couldn't regulate insurance, that was why they requested it. Once again, your copy/paste effort fails to address my claim - that insurance is, according to the Supreme Court, covered by the Commerce Clause and, as such, changes to it well within the federal government's constitutional purview (so long as the insurance in question crosses state boundaries).

The whole point of the McCarran-Ferguson Act was to allow the states to regulate insurance as they had before when they thought, contrary to what the Supreme Court clarified, that they had the authority through the tenth amendment. Quite simply put, the McCarran-Ferguson Act is not needed if the federal government couldn't regulate the industry. As your copy/paste indicated, it allows the states to regulate insurance, something that makes no sense if the federal government couldn't forbid it.

What is it you don't understand? the federal government does not and never did have the power to regulate the Insurance industry.

Tell that to the Supreme Court that ruled explicitly that it could because insurance that crosses state lines is covered by the commerce clause. You read the dissent which didn't constitute the majority decision. Did you bother reading the majority decision?

Yes the Insurance industry can be held accountable to parts of the Sherman anti-trust act like any other businesses.

Which can only be done if the insurance industry is subject to the commerce clause. Without it, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act cannot be enforced because the federal government relies on the Commerce Clause authority for that act too (look it up).

That act does not regulate the core of insurance or any other industry. Period. The Sherman anti-trust act is criminal law and provides for felony penalties, for the last time it is not a regulatory statue. Period. I am done with you, because you cant see the forest for the trees.

Never stated anything in the above quote wasn't true. All of it, however, is completely orthogonal to the claim I made (and supported with a decision you only managed to quote the dissent on), that the federal government can regulate the insurance industry and that the states do so because the federal government allows it through the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Your copy/paste summarising the act even states that explicitly.

If you're done - so be it. As I said, I don't particularly care whether you believe me. Hasn't stopped me arguing my point in these forums before and it won't in the future.

[PBzeer]

Got to thinking about this whole boondoggle and there's more point to it than is readily apparent. By taking something most people approve of and forcing it on them, not only has the precedent been set for forcing people to accept it, but it makes it that much easier to force on the unpopular.

So yeah, it may not bother ya to have the government force you to do something you find acceptable, but what ya gonna do when it's something ya don't find acceptable? You've already let them take the power, how ya gonna stop 'em? And don't forget, if the government can tell insurance companies what they have to provide, someone with different ideas can say they don't have to provide as much.

You can make your own choices, or let someone else do it for you.

[BentSailor]

Which is why, for me, the more valuable argument is whether they can do so in the first place. It doesn't matter if the medical practice in question is elective or otherwise, what matters is does the government have the authority to dictate what is & is not included in insurance.

If it doesn't, the matter of elective vs non-elective is moot. If it does, what should & should not be covered (i.e. how the government uses the power it has) is a matter to be used when deciding who to vote for, like when considering who should wield the acknowledged government powers of taxation, import/export regulation, controol of the military, etc.

Funnily enough, the idea of it being a First Amendment issue has not been something the Church has pushed before and I doubt they will this time outside PR channels. Mostly for the reasons I already outlined earlier. There are already states that force coverage of birth control at least one with no "conscience exemption" (New Hampshire). If it were a "free speech" issue that they thought they could win on, my money would have been on them bringing it to the Supreme Court already.

I posit they believe they have more guaranteed results banging on the PR drum of free speech and religious oppression than they do trying to make a case around the First Amendment.

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

At least the ones that are Catholics first and Americans second.

lol, seriously Catholics don't approve of catholic ideology on *many* subjects. Not the least of which is the birth control issue.

[PBzeer]

As long as their ox wasn't getting gored, the Church was more in step with the progressive agenda, than the conservative/limited government agenda. Now, after years of toeing the liberal line, they find it it's now their turn.

Not only does the government not have any business forcing people to purchase anything, they have no business making anything "more affordable". Unless Obamacare is either repealed or invalidated though, then it will have been established that the state can do what ever it wants to do. But don't worry, you know they'll only do what is "best" for you.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by xymotic

lol, seriously Catholics don't approve of catholic ideology on *many* subjects. Not the least of which is the birth control issue.

Considering the level of support Santorum has been getting, I'd say there are still plenty left.

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

As long as their ox wasn't getting gored, the Church was more in step with the progressive agenda, than the conservative/limited government agenda. Now, after years of toeing the liberal line, they find it it's now their turn.

Well, amongst their flaws, the Catholic church holds charity as a prime virtue. They also hold that one should love their fellow man and treat him as you would be treated. Peace on earth and goodwill to man - it's not surprising they would share certain traits with liberal thinking.

Not only does the government not have any business forcing people to purchase anything, they have no business making anything "more affordable". Unless Obamacare is either repealed or invalidated though, then it will have been established that the state can do what ever it wants to do.

I agree, the government shouldn't be forcing people to buy something. Quite simply put, if they believe that all people should be covered by health insurance, the honest thing to do is make it a government service and have an appropriate tax cover the costs - like the rest of the first world manages to do.

This half-assed, poorly thought out compromise trying to please both sides is stupid and, I believe, will fail to gain the Supreme Court's approval on the basis they are claiming. They might have another basis up their sleeve (I doubt it), but what they've put forward so far seems ludicrous.

But don't worry, you know they'll only do what is "best" for you.

No different from any other power of government. An effective government needs the power to make change. A government for more than one person is bound to do something one of the other's doesn't like or think is best for them. At least, in a democracy such as the US, you can replace the government with one you think WILL do the best thing for you.

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

Considering the level of support Santorum has been getting, I'd say there are still plenty left.

Sure, by those of the church subscribing to a Republican agenda. Santorum isn't getting a majority of support across the US (at least, that's not what is being measured), the support he is getting is amongst registered Republicans.

We know from such examples as Donald Trump & Herman Cain that getting a big swing of support behind you in the short-term is no indication of keeping it or that your supporters have thought their current choice through