Interstate commerce clause authorizes it. As Thor says, the ship of hands off federalism in favor of state control unfortunately left the port long ago. Not happy about that, but it is reality.
ACA repeal bill
- Thread starter mseabolt
- Start date
Interstate commerce clause authorizes it. As Thor says, the ship of hands off federalism in favor of state control unfortunately left the port long ago. Not happy about that, but it is reality.
Fine by me. But isn't this a brand new erosion of federalism? Correct me If I am wrong, but I can't think of another situation where the federal government forbids the regulation of a product by states (via legislation, courts do of course).
Brand new?
No, I don't think so.
Basically there are two types of preemption....conflict preemption and field preemption. This would be an effectively field preemption.
NLRB Act. Preempts state laws directed at conduct that is actually or arguably prohibited or protected by the NLRA or Congress intended to leave unregulated. Machinists v. Wisconsin Employee Relations Board, 427 US 132.
Bankruptcy Act preempts the entire field of bankruptcy regulation by states except for establishing personal exemptions/homestead exemptions to the bankruptcy estate.
So there are two.
Your assertion that this is an erosion of federalism is well taken and agreed with by me though.
FDA drug testing and approval process is another area directly product related where the Feds have arguably preempted the entire field of regulation. I don't think that states have the authority to regulate the testing and approval process. They do have the authority to bar the sale of federal approved drugs if they wanted, but don't think they can regulate required safety testing beyond that.
This one is just often the top of my head without adequate research, so I could be off base.
This one is just often the top of my head without adequate research, so I could be off base.
It's my understanding they can only repeal/replace those parts of Obamacare originally passed via reconciliation (51 votes). Anything not originally contained in Obamacare (buying across state lines) would have to be passed via 60 votes.
Haven't done enough research to refute or support one way or the other, but I am interested where and how you came to that "understanding" since President Trump tweeted essentially exactly the same contention recently. Did you do any research on your own?
I saw that Trump tweeted (didn't read it). However, it's been said by others previously that they were limited in what they could do under reconciliation.
Just one year to one year and a half ago I would have screamed and hollered about it. That was before I realized I was exactly what I hated, an idealogue.
So the fact that you don't like one of the legal offerings of PP means they can't or shouldn't be in business at all. Are you saying you should be the one to decide where women go for PAP smears and breast exams? Interesting how someone who has never used PP is the expert on their business model. Interesting that someone who wants less government regulation feels quite happy to regulate one particular company out of business.
You struck out looking with all those points.
I don't want to regulate it .. I don't want to fund it. If their business model is not good enough to stay in business, then they will fail. There is nothing in the law that says pro choice people cannot donate to Planned Parenthood.
PP has every right to be in business and perform any legal medical procedure they want. If they can't afford their business model, that is their issue.
In this case the feds are taking CA's authority to bar the sale of MS insurance are they not?
I am okay with all of this because it seems to imply we won't have to wait for Oklahoma to legalize marijuana once there is enough national support for legalization.
Beautiful, then they can get reimbursed by Medicaid and Medicare for non abortion procedures?
So glad we agree on this important issue. You might want to look up what "defunding" looks like in the law.
The vast majority of their federal funding is in the form of Medicaid reimbursement for services they render to Medicaid patients. Medicaid doesn't cover abortions except in very restricted cases according to the Hyde Amendment. Some states use their money to fund medically necessary abortions but receive no reimbursement from the federal government for those expenditures. PP does get a some money from Title X, but again those funds are used for family planning and cannot not used to fund abortions. They also get a little from other various federal grants that are purpose specific. The rest comes from private insurance reimbursements and donations. They give a LOT of free healthcare to needy folks.
If Planned Parenthood is barred from receiving Medicaid funds, it will be a public health issue caused by solely by politics.
The other two types of field preemption I mentioned were a response to your claim that this is a brand new type of preemption. This one was, in retrospect, a pretty weak attempt to give you another of the top of my head. When it comes to interstate commerce regulation, federalism and field preemption attempting to distinguish between commerce involving labor or a service and a product is ultimately a difference without in form rather than substance.
The other two examples are admittedly much more directly responsive to your claim than the one to which your responded. You identified this one has weaknesses as an analogy and jumped on it. Kudos.
you would think trump could negotiate his way to get that to happen. It's still early so this thing will change it makeup many times before anything becomes law.
Nah, I just didn't know what you were talking about except for the FDA.
I get where you are coming from but as long as one company is providing both, then you cannot guarantee tax dollars are not paying for abortions .. tax dollars go to pocket A but pocket A already has some funds so they take those out to move to the abortion pocket B.
Why can't women go to any one of these and get their healthcare?
I am sure PP can get enough private donations to provide all the abortions they want to give .. but if they really want to help women, take the tax dollars and help women and only provide Hyde amendment abortions.
OK, went back and read it again. Field preemption just means the feds step in and say "we got this?" Isn't this more like a case of the fed stepping in and saying "Mississippi got this?"
No.
Field preemption is we got this and.....nobody else does.
Which is what this is as well. Minimum federal standards are established and the insurance companies can sell anywhere.
One would think it would get more than 60 votes. Of course, I don't know which entities behind the scenes are pulling the strings. Follow the money.
Oh, well, that makes it alright, then.
At what rate does Medicaid reimburse? Is it higher for PP?I get where you are coming from but as long as one company is providing both, then you cannot guarantee tax dollars are not paying for abortions .. tax dollars go to pocket A but pocket A already has some funds so they take those out to move to the abortion pocket B.
Why can't women go to any one of these and get their healthcare?
I am sure PP can get enough private donations to provide all the abortions they want to give .. but if they really want to help women, take the tax dollars and help women and only provide Hyde amendment abortions.
Agree:
Flashback (very relevant to today):
Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google co-founder Larry Page, Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker, and Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk all attended.
So did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), political guru Karl Rove, House Speaker Paul Ryan, GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.), who recently made news by saying he “cannot support Donald Trump.”
Grim added: “Federal Aviation Administration records available on FlightAware.com show that a fleet of private jets flew into and out of two small airports near Sea Island this weekend.
Fifty-four planes flew out of the airport on St. Simons Island, Georgia, on Sunday — nearly four times as many as departed from the airport the previous Sunday.”
Flashback (very relevant to today):
Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google co-founder Larry Page, Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker, and Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk all attended.
So did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), political guru Karl Rove, House Speaker Paul Ryan, GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.), who recently made news by saying he “cannot support Donald Trump.”
Grim added: “Federal Aviation Administration records available on FlightAware.com show that a fleet of private jets flew into and out of two small airports near Sea Island this weekend.
Fifty-four planes flew out of the airport on St. Simons Island, Georgia, on Sunday — nearly four times as many as departed from the airport the previous Sunday.”
This is very much about Trump, who is just another big government liberal.
So we keep ACA and the rates will likely go up.
Nice job GOP.
It's getting next to impossible for most people to live with what all of those idiots are doing in DC.
Perhaps if everything implodes we'll be better off. (I've got a feeling that the little guy will still get screwed.)
So we keep ACA and the rates will likely go up.
Nice job GOP.
It's getting next to impossible for most people to live with what all of those idiots are doing in DC.
Perhaps if everything implodes we'll be better off. (I've got a feeling that the little guy will still get screwed.)
Last edited:
I listened to part of the press briefing today and the head of the Dept of Health said they wanted insurance to be sold across state lines, etc...and reiterated what Trump has been saying, said this was start. Perhaps if Trump does not get what he wants he does not sign the Bill and allows the GOP members that stonewalls this to be voted out.
Ted Cruz would have been a lot smarter about all this.
I hope this idiotic bill dies after it leaves the house and gets in the Senate.
Obamacare is probably better.
I hope this idiotic bill dies after it leaves the house and gets in the Senate.
Obamacare is probably better.
I don't give a shit if PP exhists. My issue is with funding their exhistance with tax dollars.
Seven years these assholes had to come up with something! 7 years! What a colossal joke. If the republicans could govern just a little bit we could be rid of liberalism for ever but noooo here we go again with the incompetence. My and the guy that soldered my hemroids could have this thing knocked out in a weekend.
Your tax dollars are not funding their "exhistance" - they exist as a medical provider. And like almost all medical providers they are dependent upon insurance reimbursements for the vast majority of services they provide. Some of that comes from Medicaid and Medicare. Those aren't your tax dollars...
Where does Medicaid and Medicare come from? The Medicaid Forrest?
And PP isn't a medical provider, it's an abortion mill.
You call that progress? That number should go up, not down. Too many babies being born.
and yet they are willing to throw the other 95-97% of other women's health care procedures away to perform elective abortions .. tell me one business that is willing to sacrifice 95-97% of their "supposed business" for 3-5% of fringe business. Those actions do not add up to their words.
Just another example of liberals' philosophy on compromise. "We'll meet you half way once you give us 100% of what we want." It's been this way for decades.
Latest posts
-
Joe With Thinly Veiled Threat Of F-15s On The Political Opposition Again- Latest: soonerinlOUisiana
-
-
-
-
