House to vote on health care reform Sunday.

[Razgovory]

Virginia will challenge the law.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/HEAL221S1_20100322-000603/332103/#comments

Virginia will waste some tax dollars then.

[crazy canuck]

An interesting angle I heard this morning is that the increased coverage for Americans will likely increase the demand for more doctors and nurses in the US which will impact countries like Canada which are already facing doctor and nursing shortages as more medical professionals are drawn into the US.

Not sure if this is accurate.  Presumably the uncovered people were already getting treatment, although in emergency wards not family doctors.

[derspiess]

Virginia will waste some tax dollars then.

Since when was that a concern to your side? 

[Razgovory]

Virginia will waste some tax dollars then.

Since when was that a concern to your side? 

Since the same time Republicans became concerned with it.  When the other side was spending money in a way we don't agree with!

[Razgovory]

And it's signed.  Nixon would be proud.

[Faeelin]

I've been reading into the commerce clause arguments against Health Care, and I've gotta say, I can't see how you could shoot it down without destroying decades of federal law. If we think growing wheat for private consumption, or pot for private consumption, falls within the Commerce Clause power, how doesn't this?

Conversely, if it doesn't, how can the government enforce drug laws based on growing it?

[crazy canuck]

The Republicans secretly want to decriminalize Pot.

[garbon]

The Republicans secretly want to decriminalize Pot.

[derspiess]

The Republicans secretly want to decriminalize Pot.

Some do.

[Admiral Yi]

Elaborate? 

It seemed like the arguments against "inactivity is not activity" boiled down to:

It's silly.

The government routinely pays people to do something when they're not doing something so they can fine someone for not doing something.

The argument against the direct tax seemed to boil down to no one pays attention to that any more.

I didn't find those very persuasive.

[Agelastus]

Virginia will challenge the law.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/HEAL221S1_20100322-000603/332103/#comments

Virginia will waste some tax dollars then.

The first comment posted in reference to that article is really funny; it is the first time I have ever seen Ronald Reagan accused of being a "Socialist" (the comment says he "took us into a socialism future".)

[citizen k]

Virginia will challenge the law.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/HEAL221S1_20100322-000603/332103/#comments

Virginia will waste some tax dollars then.

The first comment posted in reference to that article is really funny; it is the first time I have ever seen Ronald Reagan accused of being a "Socialist" (the comment says he "took us into a socialism future".)

To the very far right, there has never been a sitting president that wasn't a pinko. 

[The Minsky Moment]

It seemed like the arguments against "inactivity is not activity" boiled down to:

It's silly. . . .

I thought that was pretty persuasive given that the "inactivity" argument is just made up.  This law is not regulating inactivity; it is taking a kind of activity (the delivery, purchase and sale of health care services) and making regulations about it.  And I don't see anything in the commerce clause that says the commerce power doesn't extend to a regulation that requires people to do something.

[Admiral Yi]

I thought that was pretty persuasive given that the "inactivity" argument is just made up.  This law is not regulating inactivity; it is taking a kind of activity (the delivery, purchase and sale of health care services) and making regulations about it.  And I don't see anything in the commerce clause that says the commerce power doesn't extend to a regulation that requires people to do something.

Well, all arguments were made up at some point or another, weren't they?

People who don't have health insurance are not delivering, purchasing, or selling health care services.  They are inactive.

AFAICT there's no precedent in US history for fining people for not doing something.

[grumbler]

I would certainly think it worthwhile to allow people to opt out of the health care system completely.  They don't have to (and indeed would agree that they cannot) buy insurance, and they cannot get any health care services unless they can pay cash.  It certainly would satisfy the "not buying insurance isn't a decision" crowd, and would eliminate the free rider problem that those who refuse to buy insurance represent.

We could cut a notch in their ear or something to indicate to any EMT people called to their aid in the event of a heart attack or car crash or something to leave 'em be unless they are conscious enough to fork over the cash.