Will Obamacare become law this week?

[bamanut_aj]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, proclaimed that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”

I'm just a commie-lib hippie, but if this is unconstitutional, I side with the United Nations on this one.

It's unconscionable for a civilized society to do less than this. Constitution be damned if it's in conflict. This is just common sense.

(I'll stop mooning everybody now. Carry on.)

me and some o' the boys were drinkin beer the other night and we came up with the Whispering Woods (my subdivision) Declaration of Human Rights, and it says that everyone should have to work for the things in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights rather than having the Fed hand it out. Now I don't know who's right.....

 

[jthomas666]

He is a menace, and he's trying to play the public for fools. Are you fooled?

The federal government is taking over the student loan program, eliminating all private banks in this area except one. That would be a South Dakota bank. I wonder if this is a political deal in exchange for a "yes" vote on Obamacare. Hmmm...

And you do realize that federal student loans cause tuition to rise, right? Artificially increased demand leads to higher prices. (It's that dang Econ 101 again.) So, when Obama stumps against high tuition, and then backs the very thing that causes the increase ..... well, it's just like everything else he says: he's a liar.

Student loans were issued before the legislation, they will be issued afterward...so how will that cause tuition increase?

Before, private banks issued student loans because the federal government guaranteed them--and the lack of risk made those banks issue loans to just about anyone... So again, how will this change cause tuition increase?

 

[BamaInMo1]

What ever happened to people being responsible for themselves and their own actions?

I wonder how many people who claim to not be able to get healthcare drive big expensive vehs and live in $250k+ homes, etc? Instead of having all that maybe they should have made better choices on how to spend their money.

How many people can't get a job that provides healthcare because they chose to drop out of highschool? Maybe they should have gone another year or two and got a job with decent bennifits.

How many people who make $100k+ a year can pay for their own treatment? why force them to pay for something they don't want/need?

Most important ( no matter who the reigning power in Congress/White House is ) when has the Gvt ever run anything efficiently? You actually think they're gonna be able to run healthcare well? It will be the same 'ol crap as what you have with food stamps etc now. The people who are allowed to play the system will bennifit and those of us who go to work daily to keep our own families fed and housed will get hosed.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Student loans were issued before the legislation, they will be issued afterward...so how will that cause tuition increase?

Before, private banks issued student loans because the federal government guaranteed them--and the lack of risk made those banks issue loans to just about anyone... So again, how will this change cause tuition increase?

It's very simple. If it were up to the private sector, fewer loans (and in smaller amounts) would be handed out.

With the federal government backing the loans (similar to mortgage loans) borrowers get below market rate interest money. And the threshhold for getting a loan is much lower. Thus, the demand is higher than it should be if would-be borrowers were judged on their merits, and not just their need. More people are getting money, and individually they can secure more money. Demand is artificially spiked (again, similar to the mortgage events recently).

And now the government is going to play an even bigger role.

Hence, everyone will pay higher tuition because the government is giving money to those who don't deserve it. And by that I mean the uncreditworthy. These people, if they really wanted to try college, and don't have the grades for scholarships, should go to community college and/or part time where they can afford it. The government stepping in and allowing these people to get into more expensive schools only makes things more expensive for everyone.

So, when my wife heads back to Georgetown this Fall she'll be paying more than she should have to. Just like our house costs more than it should. And our health insurance costs more than it should. And our cars cost more than they should. And so on. All because government has stepped in to "help."

 

[Bodhisattva]

Addendum: I've told the story before of a friend's daughter who went abroad for college. She came back with a degree in sociology and $160,000 in student loan debt.

Do you think a private bank on its own would have said, "Yeah, that's a worthwhile investment. We think you'll be able to make those payments with a career in sociology (whatever that is)."

She's been a part time receptionist since she graduated three years ago.

But, the government, in its infinite wisdom, gave this clueless chick $160,000. And she can't make payments without parental help. The government has enabled bad choices and shackled additional family members. Dumb.

 

[jthomas666]

Bodhi--

Everything you cite has happened already, so I don't see how it can be used as evidence that the proposed reform will make things worse.

Your argument seems to be "The government always makes things worse, so I'm sure they'll make this worse as well". Now, that's great as sound bite, but no so much as a viable argument.

 

[Tidewater]

The US. Supreme Court, in recent cases, has attempted to define limits on the Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several stares. While Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of "commerce" was limited to the "trade and exchange" of goods and transportation for this purpose, some have argued that he is mistaken and that "commerce" originally included any "gainful activity." Having examined every appearance of the word "commerce" in the records of the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, and the Federalist Papers, Professor Barnett finds no surviving example of this term being used in this broader sense. In every appearance where the context suggests a specific usage, the narrow meaning is always employed. Moreover, originalist evidence of the meaning of "among the several States" and "To regulate"a1so supports a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause. "Among the several States" meant between persons of one state and another; and "To regulate" generally meant "to make regular"-that is, to specify how an activity may be transacted- when applied to domestic commerce, but when applied to foreign trade also included the power to make "prohibitory regulations." In sum, according to the original meaning of the Commerce Clause, Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods from one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by states, and to both regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations (and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic economy and foreign trade.

Randy E. Barnett, "The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause," The University of Chicago Law Review, Winter, 2001.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Bodhi--

Everything you cite has happened already, so I don't see how it can be used as evidence that the proposed reform will make things worse.

Your argument seems to be "The government always makes things worse, so I'm sure they'll make this worse as well". Now, that's great as sound bite, but no so much as a viable argument.

So, you are acknowledging that the current government involvement in student loan programs, which is designed to help students afford to go to school, has the unintended (but obvious) consequence of raising tuition.

But, you can't make the connection that more government involvement (and the elimination of the private sector) would magnify the problems? :conf2:

A bad government plan = bad for the country

More of a bad government plan = worse for the country

 

[Bodhisattva]

Randy E. Barnett, "The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause," The University of Chicago Law Review, Winter, 2001.

Shhhh. Don't tell the lefties on the board. They may start to believe that the Constitution actually means what it says.

 

[Relayer]

Shhhh. Don't tell the lefties on the board. They may start to believe that the Constitution actually means what it says.

Not a chance.

 

[Shortround]

What ever happened to people being responsible for themselves and their own actions?

I wonder how many people who claim to not be able to get healthcare drive big expensive vehs and live in $250k+ homes, etc? Instead of having all that maybe they should have made better choices on how to spend their money.

How many people can't get a job that provides healthcare because they chose to drop out of highschool? Maybe they should have gone another year or two and got a job with decent bennifits.

How many people who make $100k+ a year can pay for their own treatment? why force them to pay for something they don't want/need?

Most important ( no matter who the reigning power in Congress/White House is ) when has the Gvt ever run anything efficiently? You actually think they're gonna be able to run healthcare well? It will be the same 'ol crap as what you have with food stamps etc now. The people who are allowed to play the system will bennifit and those of us who go to work daily to keep our own families fed and housed will get hosed.

So because some people would abuse the system we should not implement them to help those in need?

How about a hard working citizen that holds down a typical 9-5 and needs a heart transplant, but can't afford it because no one would insure him due to him being a high risk of disease due to his family history.

 

[jthomas666]

So, you are acknowledging that the current government involvement in student loan programs, which is designed to help students afford to go to school, has the unintended (but obvious) consequence of raising tuition.

Whether I agree is immaterial. You're arguing that the proposal is bad, but your evidence applies to the current programs, not the proposed changes.

 

[Tidewater]

Shhhh. Don't tell the lefties on the board. They may start to believe that the Constitution actually means what it says.

If you compare Barnett's methodology to his opponents, it appears his opponents (legal scholars, historians and politicians) read the Constitution and then see how they can torture, pervert and twist the language of the Constitution and suppress contrary evidence to find some excuse (and it was an excuse, not an honest attempt to understand the law), however lame and implausible to enact whatever pro-government agenda item the Left wanted to enact.
Barnett's methodology is by far the more honest.

 

[Tidewater]

Shhhh. Don't tell the lefties on the board. They may start to believe that the Constitution actually means what it says.

That has been going on by the Left for a long time.
From Barnett's article: "I returned to The Power to Govern and noticed for the first time that Hamilton and Adair omitted any reference to the use of the term 'commerce' in the Philadelphia or ratification conventions, though they offered evidence from these sources for other claims. I was not surprised that Crosskey had omitted this evidence since he explicitly signaled his intention to ignore evidence from the drafting process. 'The samples of word-usage and juristic and political discussion . . .will . . . all be drawn . . . from sources not connected with the constitution.'"
Crosskey might have added, had he had sufficient integrity, that he did not include "sources connected with the Constitution" because those sources disproved his thesis, but Crosskey was a leftist charlatan and deceiver.

Barnett dissents from those who argue for an expansive interpretation of the commerce clause, beneficially Grant Nelson and David Upshaw. Upshaw and Nelson by their own admission, however, rely heavily on Walton Hamilton and Douglass Adair, in their 1937 work, Power to Govern.
Hamilton and Adair were writing in the midst of New Deal when Rooseveltian policy was running afoul of the Constitution in the courts because of the Roosevelt Administration's abusive interpretation of the commerce clause.

Hamilton, says Wikipedia, "argued that legal concepts evolved in specific historical and social contexts and that, when they were removed from their context and generalized into universal legal principles, they led to socially undesirable, often unexpected results." This was a mind ripe for loose construction. If you don't like what the Constitution says, because it produces "socially undesirable results" ("undesirable" by what evaluation criteria, one might ask, but I digress), then simply change was it means, or what you say it means, into something that will produce a socially desirable result.
Neat little trick, that.

 

[swoop10]

Perhaps you have only recently started paying attention, but the practice of combining bills has been common knowledge for years. Republicans and Democrats both have used it. But I understand that railing against the practice allows you to conveniently ignore the positive effects of the student loan reform.

Once again the same old arguement of "Johnny hit me first". If the bill is so great then why can't it stand on it's own merit? What are the positive effects of the student loan reform except the government will be the only one's with the capability to make them? Sorry for asking questions but you won't answer them anyway.:conf2:

 

[BigTex]

I dont know why this thread says I have voted on it becasue I havent and I sure wouldnt have given it five stars.

 

[NYBamaFan]

I dont know why this thread says I have voted on it becasue I havent and I sure wouldnt have given it five stars.

Interesting - it says that I rated it, too - and I don't rate threads... :conf2:

 

[jthomas666]

Once again the same old arguement of "Johnny hit me first". If the bill is so great then why can't it stand on it's own merit?

Whatever with your Johnny nonsense. Like it or not, it is a common practice. Oh, just so you know, in the past, both parties have debated bills, and then voted on them. Please don't attack the democrats for doing either.

I have never called the bill great; I've posted my problems with the bill on any number of occasions. why you persist in claiming that I am a big fan of the bill is beyond me. It is at best an OK bill; I would prefer smaller scale reform, but spread out across the spectrum of healthcare, including pharmaceuticals and access to primary care. I'm encouraged at the CBO's report on the financial impact, but I remain concerned that the emphasis on insurance may inhibit the bill's overall effectiveness.

[/quote] What are the positive effects of the student loan reform except the government will be the only one's with the capability to make them? Sorry for asking questions but you won't answer them anyway.:conf2:[/QUOTE]Let's see, ending the government subsidy of student loans? If you can't see the positive effects of that then there's little point in continuing the discussion. One might think that conservatives would be hailing an attempt to end government handouts, but such is politics.

As a NYT columnist noted

Let us stop here and recall how the current loan system works:

1) Federal government provides private banks with capital.
2) Federal government pays private banks a subsidy to lend that capital to students.
3) Federal government guarantees said loans so the banks don’t have any risk.

And now, the proposed reform:

1) The federal government makes the loans.

Or to put it another way:

Before, the Federal Government assumed all the risk (of default), but the private banks reaped all the rewards (interest payments). This gave the banks little incentive to lend wisely (hmmm, where have we heard that before...?)

Now, the government assumes the risk AND gets the interest, resulting in a more efficient program, because the student aid system can use the interest to help fund itself.

Before people start squealing that the government is nationalizing the student loan program, it's pretty obvious that it has been nationalized for years.

 

[BAMA-SLC]

Before people start squealing that the government is nationalizing the student loan program, it's pretty obvious that it has been nationalized for years.[/QUOTE]


Nationalizing is such a great thing. The mortgage industry was nationalized in 90's under Clinton. Freddie and Fannie took all the risk. They held 5.5 trillion of a 10 trillion dollar US market. If you could write your name you got a loan. Housing prices explode. The rest is history.

 

[tambo410]

Student loans were issued before the legislation, they will be issued afterward...so how will that cause tuition increase?

Before, private banks issued student loans because the federal government guaranteed them--and the lack of risk made those banks issue loans to just about anyone... So again, how will this change cause tuition increase?

The Fed guaranteed student loans...? Not sure about that. What I do know is that when you look at the default rates for Private student loans and Federal Student loans you will note a large difference. I don't have the numbers in front of me right not but it is in the neighborhood of 2 Fed defaults for every 1 Private. If the Fed is guaranteeing the Private loans logic would assume Private lenders would not bother with the cost of collecting on past due loans and just default them and collect from the Gov't.

Further, I am confident that if you remove the Private loans the Gov't default rate will increase as they have already demonstrated a poor track record for collecting... Except for the IRS that is...