Am I the only one in shock?
Whiner is arguing the federal government can force people not to be a financial burden on society?? Force them to buy insurance so they don't end up in public emergency room with no purchasing power, a financial burden on the rest of us??
Then the government can also force them to do things so they don't end up on food stamps? On welfare? In public housing? etc., so they don't end up a financial burden on the rest of us?
But anyway, let's stretch this out.
Under Weiner's belief, because a person might one day use the health care system, the congress has the right to regulate them. Ok, so I can almost guarantee that most of us will one day buy food, have bought food, are buying food, and will continue to buy food. Does the Congress have the right to to tell you what to eat? Drink?
One day you'll buy some clothes, too. Does Congress have the right to tell you what to wear?
See, this is going even beyond just this arguement of health care. In this argument, the plaintiffs argued that people weren't even participating in commerce and therefore could not be regulated. That's true. But let's say they were? Let's say there going to buy some food, does Congress have the right to regulate once the product is bought? NO!!! That's INSANE to think the Founders would have given Congress the power to regulate your every decision that impacted commerce. They didn't. I can read the Commerce clause. It isn't hard to understand. The Indian Tribes, the foreign powers, and the states. Are you, the individual, ANY of those things? What about the private insurance company? NO. You are not, and they are not.
We need to continue this fight for the next 50 years. THe fight to reduce the power of the commerce clause and the way it's being interpreted because it's just wrong.
DId you love Weiner's reasoning or what? His claim is that the bill was aimed at making sure that no longer did those with health insurance have to pick up the bill for those w/o it when those w/o it went to the emergency room.
So his fix? To increase to pool of those w/ insurance so even more people will have to pick up thebill and get screwed over by those w/o insurance when they show up to the emergency room (yes, there will still be plenty who don't get insurance and then show up for there highly expensive procedure and someone else gets to cover it). The hell? How do you see a problem and then decide that the best solution is have even more people affected by that problem?
But you see, he phrases his statement in a way that hides what is really going on. He says congress does have the right to regulate the person who shows up in that emergency room w/o insurance. Maybe he's right. But the fact is that that isn't the person Congress is regulation here. They are regulating everyone, including the millions and millions who have yet to show up in that emergency room. I wonder if Weiner knows this, or if he's actually convinced himself that what Congress is doing is constitutionally credibly.