« JOHN BOEHNER’S FLOOR SPEECH ON HEALTH CARE REFORM | Home | CONGRESSMAN KLINE’S FLOOR SPEECH ON HEALTH CARE REFORM »
VIDEO OF ERIK PAULSEN RESPONDING TO HEALTH CARE VOTE
By Luke Hellier | March 21, 2010
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 11 Comments »
11 Responses to “VIDEO OF ERIK PAULSEN RESPONDING TO HEALTH CARE VOTE”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:59 AM
Congressman Paulsen is looking more and more like the great Charles Lane, particularly in the movie, “It’s a Wonderful Life”. I am looking forward to hear him talk about why many Americans should have their health care benefits taken away.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:32 PM
Poor Hector. They already had “health care benefits”. It`s insurance that they didn`t have. I`m looking forward to Hector telling us why Americans are being forced to buy something that many of them don`t want. I`m also looking forward to Hector telling us how it`s constitutional for the federal government to force people to buy something.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:39 PM
Hector,
Nobody is having their health care benefits taken away except those who are going to have their health care benefits taxes away by Democrats who passed this bill. By the way, the taxes to pay for these health care benefits begin immediately but the ability to get the insurance doesn’t kick in until 2014. It’s hard to take away something that a person doesn’t get for four years.
March 23rd, 2010 at 4:58 AM
I accept J.L.’s editorial suggestion:
“Congressman Paulsen is looking more and more like the great Charles Lane, particularly in the movie, “It’s a Wonderful Life”. I am looking forward to hear him talk about why many Americans should have their health care insurance taken away.”
“I`m looking forward to Hector telling us why Americans are being forced to buy something that many of them don`t want.”
Because that’s the best way of insuring coverage for all.
“I`m also looking forward to Hector telling us how it`s constitutional for the federal government to force people to buy something.”
Under the same powers many critics of Obamacare want to use for things like national tort standard, and the sale of health insurance across state lines, the interstate commerce clause.
March 23rd, 2010 at 5:12 AM
“By the way, the taxes to pay for these health care benefits begin immediately but the ability to get the insurance doesn’t kick in until 2014.”
OK. Let Congressman Paulsen tell us whose insurance he wants to take away four years from now. To which constituents is he going to say, “We just can’t afford you.”
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:48 AM
Hector,
You’ve got it backwards. The people can’t afford being taxed today for benefits they don’t start receiving for four years.
As for the Interstate Commerce Clause, nothing in the Constitution and no court decision has ever held that Congress has the power to mandate to the American people that they purchase something. What’s next: a law that says Americans have to buy cars from the auto companies that were bailed out? There’s a hell of a difference between allowing people to engage in commerce across state lines and having the federal government tell you that you have to purchase something.
March 23rd, 2010 at 4:57 PM
I don’t know about cars but the state can and has routinely required individuals to buy car insurance.
The federal government’s powers with respect to interstate commerce don’t just allow trade, the feds have the power to regulate it. This is beyond settled law. They are the same powers that conservative would use to establish national tort standard for malpractice. They are precisely the same powers conservatives would have used to allow purchase of health care insurance (and any other kind of insurance) across state lines.
The fact that you don’t like a law doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:36 PM
Hector,
You’ve dodged the issue. At no time has the federal government been able to use its regulatory powers to require Americans to purchase a good or a service against their will.
What’s next, a mandate requiring Americans to buy health club memberships? A requirement that Americans eat cling peaches on Thursdays? A requirement that Americans take vitamins? Where do these mandates end?
As for car insurance, there’s a hell of a distinction. The requirement to purchase car insurance has to do with the fact that when you’re driving a car you can cause damage to somebody else. And if you don’t drive a car, you don’t have to carry auto insurance even if you ride in a car driven by someone else or get struck by a car as a pedestrian.
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:03 PM
P.S. Hector,
Two other differences regarding auto insurance:
(1) The mandate for carrying auto insurance comes from the states and each state has a different auto insurance mandate. You can also purchase auto insurance across state lines.
(2) There is an argument that auto insurance involves interstate commerce because the act of purchasing a vehicle is commerce. But there is no commerce involved in the act of simply being alive.
March 24th, 2010 at 5:08 AM
“At no time has the federal government been able to use its regulatory powers to require Americans to purchase a good or a service against their will.”
I pay taxes. My understanding is that they are not voluntary. The case of auto insurance comes immediately to mind of course. But it seems to me logical that if states can require the purchase of a product, so can the federal government if it falls withing it’s plenary power to tax and regulate interstate commerce.
“The requirement to purchase car insurance has to do with the fact that when you’re driving a car you can cause damage to somebody else.”
That’s not a constitutional difference. And uninsured people damage people financially, since their care has to be paid by someone.
“if you don’t drive a car, you don’t have to carry auto insurance even if you ride in a car driven by someone else or get struck by a car as a pedestrian.”
Again, not a constitutional distinction. States require individuals to buy an insurance. Not everyone drives a car but everyone has health which needs to be protected and everyone may need medical care one day.
“(1) The mandate for carrying auto insurance comes from the states and each state has a different auto insurance mandate. You can also purchase auto insurance across state lines.”
That sounds like a premise in a different discussion. If states in the exercise of their constitutional powers can require you to purchase a product (which no one seems to dispute), I don’t see why it’s an infringement of liberty if the federal government does the same, in the exercise of it’s undisputed power. You can buy auto insurance across state lines but that’s interstate commerce which can be regulated by the federal government.
“(2) There is an argument that auto insurance involves interstate commerce because the act of purchasing a vehicle is commerce. But there is no commerce involved in the act of simply being alive.”
But health care in this country is clearly a form of interstate commerce. So is health insurance for that matter. While you may not be able to buy insurance across state lines, many health insurance companies do operate nationally, forming local subsidiaries to do business within a given state.
March 24th, 2010 at 9:49 AM
Hector,
You’ve dodged the other questions I’ve raised. If the federal government can mandate that an individual purchase health insurance, why can’t they mandate that people eat 7 servings of fruits and vegetables every day, or take vitamins, or buy a membership at a health club, or purchase American cars? That’s all interstate commerce as well.
As to your point about car insurance, the requirement to carry auto insurance is tied to the privilege of driving a car. The state grants that privilege to individuals. But health and staying alive is not a privilege granted by the state.