+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/18/2018 07:26 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.878 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
08/19/2009 03:45 AM ID: 80275 Permalink   

Most Americans Oppose Obama's Health Care Proposal and Don't Know What's in it


A new NBC News poll shows that a plurality of Americans believe President Obama's health proposals would worsen health care, and a majority, 54 percent, is concerned the government will go too far in its effort to reform health care.

However, majorities also believe the proposal contains measures that nonpartisan fact-checkers have debunked, such as free health insurance for illegal aliens, a government takeover of the health care system, and tax dollars to pay for abortions.

And 45 percent of respondents believed the debunked notion that the proposal would empower the government to decide when to stop providing health care to the elderly. Just 36 percent of Americans think Obama's reform effort is a good idea.

    WebReporter: Ben_Reilly Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
They don't care what's in it. They are just against it because their BS talk radio idiots told them to be against it. I have never seen so much stupidity and ignorance displayed by so-called Americans in my life. They are embarrassing.
  by: Lurker     08/19/2009 04:13 AM     
  Once again  
I dont think people really care whats in it and most don't want to know.

They just dont want government invloved in anything really. We are supposed to have a small Federal Government w/local government running things.
  by: willyshawker     08/19/2009 04:14 AM     
  @ Lurker  
You are just as bad as them and there ignorance calling them so called Americans.

You have now been put on there level.

As I said in my other post while it is ignorance people want a limited federal government roll. The way it should be the way our country was set up
  by: willyshawker     08/19/2009 04:15 AM     
It's not descending to "their level" to call a spade a spade. These people are stupid to automatically oppose something that could be good for them when they aren't even familiar with it.

And last time I checked, lying is generally considered a bad thing.
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/19/2009 04:49 AM     
Obama won. The Democrats won. Obama and the Democrats got a mandate for their agenda, which includes health care reform. If most Americans were worried about Obama's agenda for the country ... HOW COME HE WON?????!!!!!
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/19/2009 04:51 AM     
while I agree he won. I think some voted had to do with race and the cool thing to do. We all know that but the man still won. He is our President and we should respect him does that mean we have to agree with him? NO. Do people have the right to change there minds? YES.

IMHO it is going on the same level as ignorance but like I said I think people just dont want big government no matter what. Democrat on my local news today said he dont want the government meddeling. So its not just the right
  by: willyshawker     08/19/2009 05:07 AM     
Most of the congress critters committed to voting for this at all costs haven't read it, and don't know what's in it either!

"“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes"

Maybe that's why we have so many stupid and oppressive laws.
  by: Libertario Cubano   08/19/2009 05:23 AM     
  It's all about the politics.  
Republicans are angry that he was elected, so they resort to spreading lies and fear-mongering. They use these tactics against an uninformed American public, and that's the only tactic they have used since the election. Fear and lies are powerful weapons and easier to use than real information or thought, such as coming up with alternative solutions to the same problems.
Every step forward he tries to make, they try to drive him two steps back because of politics. These are all legitimate problems, but maybe these people would have more credibility as leaders and actually do some good if they tried to come up with their own real solutions instead of just causing more problems?
  by: captainchainsaw   08/19/2009 06:20 AM     
  This is an issue...  
of who can yell louder, not a game of fact. I think you hit the nail on the head Ben, the democrats won, across the board...

We're hearing opposition to this bill, yes...but it's not a majority opposition, it's simply a LOUD opposition. It's always struck me that by employing a vehement attitude and saturating the air waves, falsehoods can represent themselves as "common opinion".

If I had my way, we would just nip this thing in the bud and put it to a public vote. I'm sure that we would get a resounding YES from the 20% of the population that doesn't have health insurance. The funny thing is, that 20% is bipartisan...they represent both the right and left.
  by: zirschky     08/19/2009 06:29 AM     
I think it's eerie how similar this is to September and October of last year. You have an angry minority clinging to falsehoods (back then it was that Obama was a socialist Muslim with a racist Christian pastor who palled around with terrorists; now, he wants to take over health care so he can kill everyone's grandparents). They resort to hate speech ("Waterboard Obama" back then, "Death to Obama" now).

Their leaders are woefully out of touch with everyday Americans -- back then, the fundamentals of our economy were "strong;" now, they say health insurance reform isn't needed, or at most, we should leave that reform in the hands of the corrupted health insurance industry itself (and expect what?).

Once again, those who oppose Obama are more fired up about *that* than about anything they've come up with themselves -- John McCain didn't have a platform, now the Republicans don't have a health care reform plan. It's just "Nobama" all over again.

It reminds me of a famous axiom: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/19/2009 06:36 AM     
  It's Sad...  
but the vast majority of people i talked to during and after the election couldn't tell me a single thing that President Obama actually promised to do, nor could they distinguish between his, or Sen. McCain's proposed policies. All they knew was "change" "hope" and "yes we can"....but all in all I think Americans dont want the Government overly involved in their lives.

Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ...
  by: SoulSerenity   08/19/2009 07:24 AM     
The government has been big enough to take all you have since at least the Reagan years. If you think the size of the government has been what has prevented it from taking everything we have, you're sadly mistaken.
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/19/2009 08:23 AM     
exactly....its too big now, and its only getting bigger...which is why i think people would rather have a free market heathcare system with the option to choose what heath care provider that they feel would be best for them. Not the system the government has set up for them. And im assuming the since it hasnt been the size of the government that has prevented it from attmepting to take everything I have, it must be all those conscience driven politicians we have right!?
  by: SoulSerenity   08/19/2009 09:10 AM     
Having a public option in our health care system gives people another choice -- it doesn't take away any choices. Right now the health insurance industry is unregulated to the point of immorality (

And believe it or not, most of the people running this country are trying to do what they think is right. Corruption exists but it does not prevail. There is a lot that is broken, and a lot that needs to be reformed. But the Congress-is-overrun-with-crooks bit is just tired. There are many great women and men in Congress who are working their asses off to try to fix this country.

We need to make the government more democratic and transparent so that we can use it more effectively as a nation to get what we want. Making the government smaller and weaker only makes big business larger and stronger, and they answer to no one.
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/19/2009 09:36 AM     
  inability to vote beyond party lines  
"its too big now, and its only getting bigger...which is why i think people would rather have a free market heathcare system" - SoulSerenity

The point was talking about FREE healthcare rather than FREEMARKET healthcare. But you turned it into an issue about government sizes.

Where the heck were you when DHS was implemented? Where were you when They increased funding into Virus labs for them?

Anyway - back to the subject. Big Pharm must have a really big fist up Glenn Beck and other sockpuppet lobbyists.
  by: redstain   08/19/2009 09:51 AM     
  Another Part of the Problem...  
is that there are numerous versions of this bill floating around. Another BIG part of the problem are the right wing douchbags spouting their nonsense about "Death Panels" and "Pulling the Plug on Grandma"...

No one is saying that Healthcare doesnt need to be reformed, it absolutely does, however if you are worried about immorality then the Government should vote to put restrictions and sanctions on the heathcare companies and private insurance firm in order to make health care more affordable for the public, especially in this time of economic strife. Im sure the vast majority of America is for that. However adding in the public option will have the healthcare companies competing with the government, which utterly nullifies the entire freemarket idea the nation was built on. Reform healthcare, but do not enter the government into the picture.

Plus, making the government smaller does not mean you're making it weaker, it is still the ruling body of our nation. If anything, Obama himself is talking about making the Govenment more efficient, the way you make things more efficient is to cut the fat out, and utilize the essntial programs to their full potential
  by: SoulSerenity   08/19/2009 10:08 AM     
  The experiment is over: Freemarket Health failed  
We have seen freemarket health. It's plastered on every popular ER-style media format:

Families being turned away because of Insurance...
then hard-working Docs says: F*** You, I'm saving the kid no matter what.

Funny; when I hear 'Immoral', I think of money-grubbing board of governors in hospitals.
  by: redstain   08/19/2009 10:25 AM     
  @SoulSerenity: don't get me wrong  
I agree BigGov has gotten bigger, each administration bigger than the next. But I didn't hear you speak out in Bush's reign.
  by: redstain   08/19/2009 10:29 AM     
First, I don't claim any political party, nor am i bound by any party lines with respect to voting. I vote my conscience, and what i feel is right, same as you do.

secondly, I have already stated that the freemarket heathcare system needs to be reformed, with greater restrictions and sanctions on the insurance companies, so that the families aren't turned away, and they have affordable health insurance. Also, if you can't see that a government introduced FREE healthcare option screws with the FREEMARKET idea which the nation was based on, then there is no hope in even discussing this with you any further.

Finally, the DHS has brought jobs, and security, they work closly with the US the way, they were implemented in Nov. of 2002.....Where was I?

I was a sophmore in High School....smartass
  by: SoulSerenity   08/19/2009 10:41 AM     
I also joined the site about a month ago...
  by: SoulSerenity   08/19/2009 10:42 AM     
  Most Americans  
voted for Bush TWICE!

Most Americans are idiots, that is clear by now I am sorry to say.
  by: Flutje   08/19/2009 12:40 PM     
  @health care plan  
I am against it because it seems too much of a change to take place all at once. I suppose you can say that I am scared of it. I realise that there are a lot of good things in there, don't get me wrong. But, I just have this nagging feeling that it is too much right now.
  by: nimira     08/19/2009 04:36 PM     
If you were to ask some older Americans of Japanese ancestry, they would probably tell you the government has been big enough to take everything from you since at least the 40's. But a Democrat was in power then so it's ok.
  by: xBadMonkeyx   08/19/2009 04:41 PM     
The greatest President the US ever had said, "The only thing to fear, is fear itself." The misinformed right have taken 'fear' to a new level. They seem to be afraid of their own shadows. Everything they are afraid of isn't even reality. They are being duped by special interests. Wake up, people!
  by: Lurker     08/19/2009 04:43 PM     
  congress admits  
yes most of congress admits THEY have not fully read or understand the bill. those that have worked for the government know if things can be taken more then one way, in time it will be. powers will be abused and from our own writers of the constitution, their dream was a small government with the states and local governments under the voice of the people running the businesses as seem to be in the best interest of the people localy. a plan for medical care? sure.. stop all the money to foriegn governments. need care for our real citizens? go to a doctors office or hospital and they give you the care you need, anything, and teh bill goes to the government. how to pay for? use the trillions congress gives away to other countries that we never get paid back for. now get real, there was never a health plan when this country was formed. how many years before there was the first medical insuranse? how in the world did this country survive with out one for all those years? we did and the country grew. now, this is a small industrial country filled with entitlements,(the great socity) and fast becoming a third world country that prints money that has mnothing to back it. the health care bill will just authorize yet another pool of money such as s.s and other retirement funds for congress to steal from. it is bad for teh country. just plain bad.
  by: shannon853   08/19/2009 05:00 PM     
I wholeheartedly disagree. When you take from the power of government, you give power to somebody else. In America, that somebody else is inevitably a massive corporation or 100 of them.

These people don't answer to any of us. We have no legal authority to demand to see what they're doing. They are expert at pushing the boundaries of legality, and they exist for one solitary purpose -- to take as much money as they can and to give as little as possible for it.

You tell me why I should trust *them* over a government program that I can have a voice in -- where I can vote for a candidate who pledges to fight for the reforms I want to see, and who won't make a single solitary dollar above his or her salary for doing it or else risk being locked up in prison.

And you say you were a sophomore in high school when DHS was passed. Well, two years later you were a legal adult, and there were still four years left of Bush. Where were you at age 18, 20? Thinking that Bush was great, but we better not get a Democrat in the White House?
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/19/2009 05:05 PM     
Do you have any links where Congressmen admit they haven't read the bill? Because the only one I've heard admit he hasn't read it is Mitch McConnell, the Republican who's so against it.
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/19/2009 05:06 PM     
Your friend Stenny Hoyer thinks it's hilarious that he's expected to read a bill that will let the government consume another 17% of GDP.
  by: Libertario Cubano   08/19/2009 06:36 PM     
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/19/2009 06:50 PM     
  @ Ben  
In 2002 I was also a sopomore I graduated in June 2004 my bday isnt until after the elections so I couldnt vote maybe the same thing with soul?

ANyway I would have prob voted for Bush in 04 if I could and mainly because I didnt understand everything that was going on at the time. I would have went in with the thinking becuase of 9/11 he was the best man for the job. I was extremly misinformed at the time.

On the flip side a littled bit of randomness my cousin turned 18 in Sept, 04 and voted for Kerry only becuase he thought his daughters where hotter than Bushs'.

I think we still have alot of that going on today with our elections people voting for someone becuase its the cool thing to do or various other things and not on the issues.
  by: willyshawker     08/19/2009 07:45 PM     
"Having a public option in our health care system gives people another choice -- it doesn't take away any choices. Right now the health insurance industry is unregulated to the point of immorality."

Uh, what? Do you have a source for that, or did you just make it up? I ask, because your statement is patently false.

According to a Health Affairs journal, public spending amounts to 45-56% of total US healthcare expenditures. This money must originate from somewhere, be it debt monetization or direct taxation.

This most certinaly does remove a choice--the option to spend your money where you feel it should be appropriated. These coercive tactics are the antithesis of Liberty, of which most liberals claim to support. As a classical liberal, I denounce theft in any form--be it coercive taxation or armed robbery.

"We need to make the government more democratic and transparent so that we can use it more effectively as a nation to get what we want."

If you're ever studied political science, you'd know that you're basically advocating pluralism. This inefficient system is ruled by special interest groups that don't necessarily represent what's best for society. Ultimately, these political systems become little more than mob rule, with 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Politics becomes little more than a popularity contest, with no minority voice ever being heard.

This is precisely why our founding fathers created this nation as a Constitutional Republic.

"Making the government smaller and weaker only makes big business larger and stronger, and they answer to no one."
This is the most niave thing I've ever heard. Business can only capitalize upon mutual agreements in relation to their products. In short, business MUST answer to their customers. Otherwise, there is no business to be had. Government, on the other hand, answers to few but itself.
  by: austrian   08/19/2009 08:30 PM     
I couldn't get to this part in the source:

"Also, while just 36 percent believe Obama’s efforts to reform the health system are a good idea, that number increases to 53 percent when respondents were read a paragraph describing Obama’s plans."

As points out:

"That's a 17-point gap in support for the Democrats' health care plans when the plan is simply referred to as "Barack Obama's health care plan" versus when a reasonably fair description of the plan is actually provided to the respondents. Whence the source of the discrepancy?"

So yeah, people actually like the sound of Obama's health care plan when they hear what it *really* is, rather than what right-wing liars tell them.

@austrian: Wow, you sound like a pompous windbag. I hate to tell you this, but this school of economics that you apparently love so much you named yourself after is a bunch of hooey.
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/19/2009 08:59 PM     
  LOL... Ben's hair is standing on end again.  
Austrian, bet you didn't know the very economic model our founders framed this country around is a bunch of "hooey", did you?

On the subject of reading H.R. 3200 Ben.. it was introduced on Friday, July 31st. Obama urged congress to pass it on or before Friday, August 7th, the day the current session would end for summer recess. So, here's the link you asked for... it's a link to common sense mathematics: How many people do you know who can read a 1000 page novel in seven days? Let alone 1,013 pages of legal jargon and be able to effectively internalize the information. I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying it cannot be done effectively.

Obama could not have expected them all to read and understand this plan in seven days, yet he expected them to pass it anyway. That tells me all I need to know about this man's integrity.

So, I don't blame the majority of Americans for fearing this bill. And as for the right and their fear mongering.. they're doing the same thing the left does when they are in power. Clearly you're okay with anyone using unethical tactics to get what they want, based on your comment to me here: especially when the other side has used them, right?

If you're going to stand by principal you must stand by it all the time. Cherry picking the evil you do doesn't make it any less evil, nor does trading evil deeds.

  by: bbeljefe     08/20/2009 01:31 AM     
  If i were Obama...  
I would shut the whole thing down. More then 20 people have brought loaded weapons to meeting (I think they should put restrictions on the second amendment), The news constantly shows pictures of death threats to me (Remember i am temporarly Obama), there has not been one meeting where people have screamed for reform or talked on there cellphones while answering a question, And now i'm learning that four fifths of the protesters don't even know whether it will benafit them or not!? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!!
  by: Dolphin Commando   08/20/2009 03:11 AM     
  This should have read,  
Most Americans Oppose Obama's Health Care Proposal and Don't Know What's In It

Most Dem's and Liberals want Obama's Health Care Bill and don't know what's in it. Most American's don't care what's in it, they oppose the bill because they don't want the Government in it.
  by: Hellblazer     08/20/2009 04:02 AM     
I love it when one party or another tries to claim the Founding Fathers as their own. It's like calling someone a Nazi in a forum.

And BB, I know you're a smart guy, so do you not realize that portions of this bill have likely been around since Clinton was in office? Democrats have introduced health care reform legislation for Congressional consideration practically every year for decades now. This wasn't sprung on anybody, and for you and others to act like this was hammered out in a few months is not only intellectually dishonest, it's also pretty ludicrous -- and undoubtedly naive.
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/20/2009 04:58 AM     
  Also @BB  
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/20/2009 05:00 AM     
  I have never claimed the Libertarian party had  
anything to do with this country's founding, Ben. I haven't because I know that isn't true. In fact, there were no parties when our country was founded. No republicans, no democrats, no green party, no libertarians, etc.

It might also help is you understood that Austrian economic theory nor any other economic theory are to be construed as "parties". This country was founded on free market theory and principal by people who had no affiliation with any party.

The free market economic model is what our country was founded on and Austrian economic theory is based solely on the free market. Further, the Libertarian party follows that principal. Argue and produce all the links you like, Ben. It won't change the truth.

  by: bbeljefe     08/20/2009 05:20 AM     
  by: BNKE1   08/20/2009 10:38 AM     
  Quote Of The Day  
America's health care system is second only to Japan ... Canada, Sweden, Great Britain ... well, all of Europe. But you can thank your lucky stars we don't live in Paraguay!
- Homer Simpson, animated television character
  by: shiftyfarker   08/20/2009 11:30 AM     
Resorting to ad-hominem already? I figured you had at least a few arguments up your sleeve.

If the Austrian school is "hooey" as you describe, then explain why Friedrich Hayek obtained his Nobel prize while expanding theories of the Austrian business cycle. While you're at it, tell me how those versed in Austrian theory were capable of predicting our current economic crisis while the average keynesian was taken aback by the situation.

I'm gonna lol hard if you post anything with Krugman's name in response to this, so please do.
  by: austrian   08/20/2009 02:52 PM     
I see your ability to function improperly is still intact. Costa are out of control because they do not reflect prices created by the voluntary exchange between patients and providers, between customers and producers, like every other well-functioning industry. Instead, health costs reflect the distortions that government regulators have introduced through reimbursement mechanisms created by command-and-control bureaucracies at federal and state levels. Medicare, Medicaid, workers compensation, HMOs and even private health-insurance firms that follow Medicare rates, rely on cost reports submitted by providers. This cost data is then pushed through mathematical models and additional data generated by government, such as inflation and regional-labor-cost modifiers, to unilaterally (or in agreement with lobbyists and industry groups) determine what the prices for services should be. But it is theoretically and practically impossible for a bureaucrat — no matter how accurate the cost data, how well intentioned and how sophisticated his computer program — to come up with the correct and just price. The just price of a health service can only be determined by the voluntary exchange of a patient with his hospital, physician, and pharmacist. The relationship between the patient and his private provider has been corrupted by the intrusion of government and its intermediaries (HMOs, for example) to such an extent that we can no longer speak of a relationship that can produce meaningful pricing information. Given the level of technological advance and capital investment in healthcare of the past 40 years, one would expect quality to increase and prices to come down relative to other goods and services. This is true of other capital-intensive industries like consumer electronics and air travel. But in healthcare we have the opposite phenomenon: higher prices and, at best, equal or slightly improved quality in some locations or, at worst, lower quality in other locations, particularly government owned institutions. And too few consider that perhaps government participation is to blame. Contrary to Obama's suggestion that knowledge of clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness can be obtained and disseminated, there is no rational way to evaluate cost effectiveness outside of the free market. Central health planners cannot compare and recommend the best option between two different combinations of drugs, hospitals, and physicians to treat a particular ailment. It is not just a matter of figuring out which combination offers better outcomes and lower costs. In fact, the bureaucrat actually needs prices to make that comparison! This is also why Obama's ideas on payment reform to change how Medicare pays providers, and knowledge reform to investigate which treatments are most cost effective will never work and will increase costs and reduce quality. Obama's plan also includes a reform of our private health-insurance market. He would like, first, to make health insurance mandatory for all Americans, second, to offer an affordable public option, and third, to eliminate the ability of insurance companies to "cherry-pick" which services to cover and which to deny. These changes, he believes, will reduce cost shifting — the practice that providers use to subsidize charity, bad debt, and unprofitable government programs by charging more to insurance companies and private payers and patients — and will spread the risks of the insurance company to healthy individuals, thereby reducing the costs to everyone.
  by: blac Hi-Def   08/20/2009 04:35 PM     
  @Ben, continued  
These insurance reforms ideas are flawed. They are based on the assumption that health insurance companies can charge premiums to a pool of policyholders, predict and pay for a large loss triggered by an event outside the control of the policyholder, and make a profit. But sickness combines risks that are uncontrollable with risks that are indeed controllable by the policyholder (eating, exercise, preventative habits, and adherence to treatment plans, for example) and the provider (selection of diagnostic tests, specialists and hospitals, for example). As a result, insurance companies are left with tools of rationing via higher premiums, deductibles, copayments and utilization controls placed on providers, which have a tendency to create nonrandom groups of policyholders and providers. Health insurance companies are more instruments of income redistribution than risk managers, and they are left with only one option: to charge healthy individuals enough to subsidize sick individuals. Eventually, when the impact of the redistribution on individuals is high enough, many either opt out or are priced out of the market, creating the 50 million uninsured individuals. Obama explicitly stated that he wanted to force the redistribution of income from healthy to unhealthy individuals but with the illogical belief that somehow this scheme will reduce the costs to everyone. But we have seen that even if the size of the risk pool is extended to the whole population of the United States by mandating every American to have health insurance and hence fixing the size and selection of the risk pool to the whole population, this does not address the fundamental flaw of mixing controllable with uncontrollable risks. Any sensible insurance reform should separate these risks and only cover uncontrollable risks, allow individual underwriting (the practice of insurance companies assessing each individual's pricing and eligibility) move away from community rating (the practice of offering the same price to large groups of individuals regardless of each individual's age, sex, health status, and risk level) so that healthy people pay lower premiums and sick people pay higher premiums, exactly the current model for life insurance. In other words, we should allow and encourage "cherry-picking," not ban it. The logical tendency of Obama's insurance reforms, despite his explicit denial, will be an inexorable movement towards a single-payer system as his reforms will not control costs or utilization, and the only alternative left will be to enhance the control of the plan via explicit rationing, by a bureaucrat, of the care delivered. The central authority must then decide which health services are provided and which denied, who should receive them and who should not, when they should be given, all in addition to its current function of attempting to determine prices. Such a centralized system must logically retrograde into chaos because pricing signals to patients, doctors, and hospitals will be so distorted that they cannot guide resource allocation.
  by: blac Hi-Def   08/20/2009 04:36 PM     
So the writing of our current constitution had nothing to do with the price of shoes in New York, did it?

It had nothing to do with the fact that Congress had no power to regulate imports and exports under the Articles of Confederation, or with local tradesmen howling when foreign merchants did things like dumping 30,000 pairs of cheap shoes onto the New York market, undercutting the profits of local shoemakers?

Part of our constitution's very design was intended to give Congress the ability to make rules for the market.
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/20/2009 05:23 PM     
Regulating imports and exports goes exactly against what our Constitution was put in place to do...since you know, that would defy this pretty primitive concept known as..."free trade." I don't really know of anything in the Constitution designed to give government free reign to regulate the free market. It's just not there.
  by: blac Hi-Def   08/20/2009 05:42 PM     
  @blac HIDEF  
So I take it you've never heard of the Commerce Clause, have you? Well, this is a teachable moment, then:

"The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers' response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation. For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Then, in response to rapid industrial development and an increasingly interdependent national economy, Congress “ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power,” beginning with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 and the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890."

-- from the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich, 2005.
  by: ben_reilly     08/20/2009 10:47 PM     
Sorry, just got to your post. Sorry again, because I get the last "lol" on this one -- that Nobel prize you tout for Hayek was also won by ... Paul Krugman! : )
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/23/2009 02:45 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: