The Blue Board

I understand capitalism and free-market competition much better than you could ever hope to. Masters degree in economics here (which I did for fun AFTER getting an engineering degree, sf). What are your qualifications to discuss capitalism?

I'm generally against insurance as a whole because it is socialistic in nature. I do have insurance on things like my home, which I cannot easily afford to replace, but free-market insurance is a far cry from this government-run insurance that you're pushing. That is, by its very definition, socialism. Any effort by the government to force people to buy anything is, as the blog linked in the OP shows and as the SC will prove, unconstitutional. Your argument that government involvement in health insurance will reduce costs is flawed primarily because it assumes that, even if this move were to be allowed by the SC, that the government will simply increase the number of buyers and step aside. You know for a fact that this is not the case. You know for a fact that this new, mandated consumer base will also come with new regulations that will not allow the providers to operate in an economical fashion. In fact, not only do you know this, it is also your motivation for supporting this. Voluntary increases in these companies' customer bases would be a good thing for them. A mandatory increase and the reduced operational freedoms that this would come with would be crippling...but you already knew all that

You believe that?

Every state does not have the same power company, so not the same as one health care on the federal level.

You're still failing to explain how this explains the need for government to step in on "health insurance" or even justifies it.

Because the market doesn't follow normal
economic principles and is naturally very costly and already regulated, the government (either on the state or federal level) should step and lower the overhead and make coverage universal. To see what benefits arise,go read the link I posted on the previous page.

No, please provide some basis for your claims. "Because the market doesn't follow economic principles" is not only an asinine statement, it provides zero justification even if it were true.

At what point does the anti-monopoly law kick in in industries like insurance and utilities? Hell, where I live, you could accuse some cable TV providers of monopolizing.

First off,this is a fucking forum. I'm not going to waste my time when you can go look up what makes health insurance markets different.

When the spending on healthcare is swallowing our economy and it occurs over every state in the union,that falls under past precedent of constitutionality under the commerce clause.

It is ok to disagree with something in principle,but just because you believe it,that does not make it inherently right in every case.

Psst....he's posting under one of his other handles right now. Hell be back shortly.

You are such a fucking typical liberal loser. You clearly are intentionally only choosing to look at part of the picture because you know damn well that the whole picture will not support your argument. When taken as a whole and increased regulations are put in place, you know the insurance companies can no longer operate efficiently. If you weren't just an e-badass troll, you would have seen my answer to that in my reply to the retarded bammer on the previous page. You, sir, are an idiot.

Not here. It doesn't apply and it won't be applied. What more proof could you want than the inevitable ruling that this bill is unconstitutional. Let me hear some of that liberal "logic" explain that away.