This link has good information on this subject. I haven't read it all yet. It is from a conservative news site.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vi … eId=106694
The link was very interesting, thank you for sharing. I believe that Health Ins. is not a right, and should not be forced on us by the gov't. What suprises me, or maybe not, is the way the Health Care Plan, slowly morphed into Health Insurance Plan. Some form of Health Care has always been provided regardless if one had Insurance or not. In reading the current bill I've come to the conclusion that nothing will change except the re arranging of monies, and a control by the gov't. No, I don't think it's constitutional.
No its not Constitutional, penalizing us for not buying into a government program is not a power granted to the federal government! Th specific role of the federal government is spelled out in the Constitution and it definitely doesn't include this. The government doesn't have the power to interfere with the private sector in this way, its a huge power grab.
of course it's not Constitutional.
Anything that uses paper money is unconstitutional.
Our entire money supply is unconstitutional.
Government takeover of anything regarding the people that it governs, is not constitutional. Its too much control, and American's voted against what Obama has done with healthcare anyway. They noticed little things like their private insurance costing them more as a result. (Just one small thing, never mind the extra money spent that cannot be afforded.) People don't like it, and voted as such.
Why didn't you just add this to the other thread you started?
If it actually was gvt taking over, we'd all be better off. Get the Insurance Companies out of there!!!
Couldn't disagree more. I can't think of anything the government has done a stellar job of running. We needed reform, but not this. It is definitely unconstitutional.
How many countries have been to the moon?
that is a success sort. Perhaps we should let Nasa take over Fema, Homeland Security and the Pentagon. Then we'd have compassionate and effective disaster response, no confusion on the meaning of civil liberty and no fudging on whether or not there are weapons of mass destruction. I don't have anything against regulation. I think the American people are grossly abused by insurance policy, but the government has proven, in my mind, an inability to create an effective bureaucracy.
... we went to the moon... played some golf... dropped a few things...
SOUNDS LIKE A WISE INVESTMENT!!!
how much did that cost? Billions of dollars (back when Billion meant "a lot"), and ... how many lives?
Of course it's unconstitutional! The power to provide universal health care to the citizens is reserved to the States exclusively! Some states have actually implemented. Interestingly, you do see a mass exodus of people moving to those states!
Folks - LL posted on another thread her opinion that Medicare is unconstitutional. Think about it - do away with Medicare and let medical costs bankrupt seniors and then watch them die. Compassionate conservatism. The bird of the extreme conservative is not an eagle - it's a vulture.
... medicare IS unconstitutional....
Just because something sounds "happy and good" doesn't mean that it's "constitutional".
Please to be reading Federalist papers #41. Madison actually makes fun of people's reading skills when they suggest that things like Medicare and the sort are Constitutional.
"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?"
James Madison makes it clear that ONLY those powers in Article 1 Section 8 are given to the Federal Government.
Health Care is NOT one of them.
That would be a good argument if the opinion of Madison in The Federalist Papers was in any way binding. It's not. The opinions of the Supreme Court ARE! And the USSC has repeatedly upheld Medicare.
Sure, the Supreme Court and big government have been complicit in eroding our rights for a long time.
Whats your point?
And that is the only way the left can get what they want.
Incompetent Judges ruling against the limits imposed by the Constitution.
That CAN'T be true:
Article 1 Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Thus, the Supreme Court can NOT - repeat NOT - legislate.
You've fallen for the Sophistry of your leaders.
I did NOT say the Supreme Court can legislate. I said they decide what the law IS. It's rather petty of you to deliberately twist what I said.
Doug, this was your EXACT quote:
"That the ruling of the USSC is LAW-"
Such a statement CLEARLY shows that you think the Supreme Court is a legislative body.
No one could POSSIBLY read what you wrote there and think that you meant anything but "the USSC can determine what is and what is not against the law".
I will type slowly for you.
The USSC does not write law - it does not pass law -
It decides what the law IS! They have exerted the authority to strike down a law or portion of a law and in that capacity they are the final authority on the LAW!
the supreme court decisions are not "binding".
The Supreme Court, according to the Constitution, only apply to cases.
That means that, when there's a disagreement between certain cases (outlined in the Constitution), the Supreme Court is the arbiter of those specific cases.
You ought to let them know they have been doing it wrong for over 200 years.
Thank you Mr. Hughes... not so much because I agree with your stance, but for getting us back on track... the original topic of this forum was not whether or not the health insurance bill was "right" or "wrong", but rather whether it was "constitutional".
It's not my fault that everyone bent over and ... well...
The fact remains: English means something, and the Constitution was written in English.
Wikipedia - under Delusional disorder...
"Specifically, to be a "delusion," a belief must be sustained despite what almost everyone else believes, and not be one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture.."
The belief that the United Stats Supreme Court can not decide the Constitutionality of a law, despite 200 years of USSC precedents .. may qualify as a delusional disorder.
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAW IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST. I'm actually disgusted you would use that argument, Doug.
If "reading a document that is considered the Supreme Law of our Land correctly" is considered delusional...
... then I guess we're all doomed.
Here's the quote STRAIGHT from the Constitution:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"
(the specific types of cases are outlined elsewhere in the document)
The word "Cases" is even capitalized.
YOUR argument, on the other hand, is that the USSC can determine the constitutionality of a LAW. "Cases" and "law" are different - in fact, the document that we're talking about does NOT use them as synonyms.
So, call me delusional. But I'm the one who is actually supporting his arguments with direct quotes from the document in question. And the document is 100% consistent with my arguments. (For a refresher, my argument was that the USSC can only judge on specific cases)
Sorry, but there's just no way you'll ever be able to convince me otherwise.
I'm sorry your government teachers lied to you (notice that they were likely employed by the very government that is trying usurp more power from you). I'm sorry the document completely agrees with my argument. I'm sorry that English words have meaning.
I'm sorry, but the Constitutionality of a program is NOT simply a popularity contest (as you imply with your "Delusional" definition).
I'm sorry, but I'm right.
And (according to you) the USSC for the last 200 years has been wrong.
I call that delusional.
I think the problem lies in some peoples understanding of how our health care works right now.
Medicare is provided by the Insurance companies. I know because I was a claims adjudicator. Seniors pay a Premium just like you would do while working for a company in order to receive that care, it is determined by your income and some people who have private insurance through their retirement package do not have medicare or depending on their financial situation have it as secondary insurance.
In many cases there is also a deductible and certain aspects of Medicare only provide for certain things, like hospital stays (Medicare A). With Medicare A the rate is negotiated by Medicare instead of OUR TAXES going to pay the private pay bill of someone who cannot afford it.
Medicare B only covers people in certain situations or criteria such as if you had a medicare covered transplant it will cover those medications. Medicare D is RX coverage and you know what I billed these claims and people pay still pay a lot especially because insurers find a way to not have to cover many medications and they don't cover what the state covers.
SO here is the deal IT IS NOT a government takeover of health care it is government regulation of health care, government tax credits, money to help defray cost to low income people, and insurance companies seek contracts to get a piece of that pie. If it so bad why then do they seek contracts to be a medicare provider?
Health care reform is in order to reduce the debt that health care is causing in this country and close many of the loopholes that put people at risk of death.
Just like the government regulates companies so they don't poison the water we drink -which in many places they still do- it is because businesses goal is profit at any cost that they need to be regulated. Imperfect but way worse without.
The republicans argue it will cost jobs but the CBO says that it will probably add jobs. They also argue it will add to the deficit but that is a twist of the truth which is if they repeal it will add hundreds of billions and if they keep it that number will be less.
So please- the public option *( key word option) would have been a better one for this argument but the democrats chickened out on that one. Too Bad since I have seen firsthand the manipulation of private insurance companies at the cost of lives.
*A tax is not a mandate and unless you want emergency services to leave you to die in an emergency if you have no insurance then you cannot argue against it. But please if you think you should die in that situation please say so.
Show me where we have Universal Healthcare. Seriously Lady, I haven't read a single post you have made in 2 months that doesn't either have a lie or a misrepresentation in it. Not a single one
First - there is no government 'takeover' of health care.
The law does not set fees for doctors.
The law does not require doctors to participate.
The law does work entirely through existing insurance companies.
The law does not select your insurance company - you do.
The law does not select your doctor - you do.
The law does not EVER interfere with the doctor-patient trust.
The law DOES provide medical coverage for 32 million Americans who would not have had care. A Harvard study showed that tens of thousands of Americans die for the lack of medical care.
The Supreme Court will decide the Constitutionality.
I have no right to health care, but you have the right to an assault weapon with a 30 clip.
Is something backwards here?
I mean, who exactly is in charge here?
I think it's obvious, and just look at all the commotion when anyone tries to change it!
God--step back and take a look at what we have become!
Pelosi--you are an angel! In the political sense....before all the personal slams start.
let's see here...
... health care... medicare... in the constitution...
nope! didn't see anything in there!
...guns... arms... militas... in the constitution...
OH! here it is!! [b] THE SECOND AMENDMENT/b]
Also, remember, STATES exist. And the issue of health care is, at best, a state's issue.
I would like to remind everyone that the constitution doesn't GRANT you rights. The Constitution is merely a document that PREVENTS the government from TAKING your [insert deity here]-Given rights.
The Constitution doesn't give anything. It prevents things from being taken away.
There is a basic ethical question which every individal who engages in a Constitutional debate must answer. Does the Constitution exist to serve the people of the United States or do the people exist to serve the Constitution?
The Constitution exists to impose limits on government.
Jim Hunter - "The Constitution exists to impose limits on government."
Actually - no. The Preamble to the Constitution DEFINES why the Constitution exists. A review for wingnuts who don't know the Constitution
We the People of the United States,
in Order to form a more perfect Union,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.."
Notice there is no clause that says 'impose limits on government'.
There is a clause which I underlined. "Promote the General Welfare."
I don't think you have to be a flamin' liberal to think it is in the interests of the 'general welfare' to devise a system that makes medical care available to people regardless of income. Most sane people would agree it's inherently 'unjust' (justice - it's in the Preamble - first item) to have people die of illnesses which could be treated or cured because 'We the People' (that's common folk, not just the rich) can't afford or have been denied access to the medical system.
there's no clause that says "limit government"? Really?
Article 1 section 9's title: "Section 9 - Limits on Congress"
Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The title to Article 1 section 10: "Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States"
Random quotes from the Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law ..."
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
"No State shall..."
Doug, come on. Clearly the document was written to restrict the powers of government.
The Bill of Rights clearly limits intrusion on the rights of individuals.
The document was not written to restrict the power of government - it was written to expand the power of the Federal Government. Compare the US Constitution to the Articles of the Confederation and it's clearly designed to be an expansion of federal power.
The Constitution is a compromise document with a great deal of ambiguity. You want to pick and choose your clauses and ignore the greater issues of Justice and the General Welfare, defining them to suit your narrow view.
Yes yes yes. In COMPARISON to the documents preceding it, the Constitution expanded FEDERAL government power and RESTRICTED state power.
But, it's simply impossible to read the document and think that it in anyway could be construed as some sort of "let's give everyone free welfare" document is complete nonsense.
The document CLEARLY places STRICT restrictions on the powers of the Federal Government -- there's an entire amendment dedicated to this function (although the USSC has - surprise surprise - redefined English to give themselves more power).
IT also restricts the powers of State's -- there's even an entire Section dedicated to it.
And 4 of the amendments explicitly state that the federal government is incapable of doing a whole laundry list of activities. In fact, the 10th amendment makes that laundry list into more of a "list of every imaginable thing that isn't specifically outlined in article 1 section 8".
Also, the entire Revolutionary War (when the colonies seceded from Great Britain) was dedicated to limiting the powers of government.
There's no hope in your argument, Doug. You HAVE to realize this.
Doug, how many times do I have to point out that the term General Welfare was actually a LIMIT on the powers of government?
IT meant GENERAL welfare, as opposed to individual welfare -- i.e., taxing and giving bailouts to "too big to fail" companies.
The Federalist #41 CLEARLY points this out. And Madison, at the time, was actually a proponent of BIG government!!!!!!
Yours is a misinterpetation and a perversion of the constitution. If you actually bother to research it you'll learn why.
ie, you're not sure why or even if but it suits your stance for it to be a misinterpretation and perversion of the constitution. . .
Actually I have written often on why and im tired of repeating myself especially to those who can't seem to comprend it.
Actually, if that is the case then don't you think that the inability of those who can't seem to comprehend it might just be a sign of lack on your part rather than on theirs?
No. I'm pretty convinced they are liberals that have been indoctrinated and are incapable of actual independent thought.
It can be unethical all it wants
Ethical =/= Constitutional.
If you actually sit down and read the Constitution, you will see, with ease, that it was created to prohibit the government from usurping the rights of the citizenry.
Amendments 1-5, 9 and 10 make this very very very clear.
"I have no right to health care"
You have a right to health care as long as you can afford it.
"Is something backwards here?"
Yes there is, if you think you have a right to something that I have to pay for.
"I mean, who exactly is in charge here?"
The majority of United State citizens.
"God--step back and take a look at what we have become!"
Yes lets, we have become a nation of whiners who think everything is supposed to be handed to us by government.
"Pelosi--you are an angel! In the political sense....before all the personal slams start."
A nation of whiners? Really.
Handed to us? Fine then I want the right to take what back what I paid for that is taken away for me.
Like for example- I would like to be able to use my right to bear arms to kill the CEO of the insurance company if he takes my insurance away when I have cancer because ten years ago I was a victim of domestic violence and right now that is a pre existing condition.
You can't have it both ways dude. I want to usurp the corporations who we have made laws to protect.
What government takeover of health care? There's not even a public option under the plan as it exists.
You might as well wail about a government takeover of auto insurance.
My daughter is just now going through the motions to get her drivers' license.
First of all, it cost $600.00 for the course at school.
Second, it's a course, with lectures and a book to study.
Third, she had to take a written test to qualify for her permit...cost $$ too.
Fourth, she has to have 40 hrs of drive time with me, and then she can start her drive time with an instructor.
Fifth, after the instructor-time, she has to have a driving test...pass or fail. Cost $$. If she fails, she has to try again....and pay again.
Then, when she gets on my insurance, it's $2,400 a year for her to drive...and that's just the basics!
My car needs to be inspected every year...if it isn't up to par, they fail it...and I must fix the problem before it gets passed, whether it's a broken tail-light, or a new transmission system.
If I don't pay my car insurance, they cancel it, and they notify the registry of motor vehicles. Should I be pulled over by the police, they can impound my car, throw me in jail and/or fine me.
How do I go about getting a gun? Am I tested yearly? Do I even have to pass a test? Must I pay every year for the priviledge of owning?
Or can I go to a gun show and flash some cash---walk out of there like Anni Oakley!
How do I go about getting a gun? Am I tested yearly? Do I even have to pass a test? Must I pay every year for the priviledge of owning?
Or can I go to a gun show and flash some cash---walk out of there like Anni Oakley!"
Nope, its cheaper to have a gun than kids.
If you had only known.
Sorry, but driving is not a right, it's a privilege. Big difference.
I remember the ancient cavemen demanding that they have a right to drive.
They walked up to the stegosaurus, and hoped on. But when Thag was pulverized, they formed a committee to explain to Mr. Stegosaurus that "they had a right" to drive him.
... the moral of the story is that they all got pulverized.
Well, not so in my eyes, but this will go way off-topic. Just wanted to make a point, for the record.
Oh... lol, don't get me wrong... driving is EXTREMELY important to me (see avatar for one reason), even if I'm just cruising with no destination. But, by LAW, it is indeed a "priviledge", not a gauranteed right.
The only reason I point that out is, it's "apples and oranges" to try and say that getting your driver's license is comparable to owning a firearm.
I have articles that deal with all of these topics, but, as I'm not allowed to promote them, and I don't wish to recopy them here... you'll just have to take my word for it that I've put some serious thought into these questions.
Oh, you're arguing that it's a privilege granted by government?
I'm afraid I disagree completely.
It's a privilege because it costs money and I have to earn the ability to drive.
It can't be a right because, if it were, I would be able to walk up to any car dealership and get a free car. Which would obviously be non-sensical.
Nah... I'm not PERSONALLY arguing that it's a "privilege", in terms of how I personally feel about it.
But, via the Constitution, there is NOTHING (that I know of) which grants it as a specific right, and according to most, if not all, states... driving is legally considered a "privilege", and, yes, it is in fact a privilege that's granted to you by the government... which is why you do have to pass a test and be granted a license to legally operate a motor vehicle on public roads.
In any case, that's all getting way off the original topic here, and since no one with the opposing view regarding the healthcare bill's constitutionality seems too interested in attempting to refute my original argument... allow me to take this opportunity to humbly bow out of the fray.
True dat, legally it certainly is, even though it is an idiocy - like most of the laws anyway
I'm not sure it's any issue of having "enough" money. The Amish use horses for transportation around here, and they are quite poor. But when my daughter's horseback riding instructor's truck breaks down, she doesn't feel she can use her horse as a backup. (And she's not all that well off, either.) The issue isn't how much money you have -- it's how much time. The Amish feel they can afford to go more slowly. It's all in the mind!
Oh, absolutely. I was just saying that there is an entrance barrier for this "right".
What _is_ the entrance barrier for this right?
And do you think a horse is more expensive than a car, necessarily?
Mine is a horse... of sorts... well, it's a Mustang, anyways, lol.
It's a necessity around here. No car---No work----No getting food--no going to doctor, etc...unless you can afford a taxi for all of that.
I feel your pain, and I tried to clarify that, for myself as well, it's a very important privilege... both as a necessity, and as something I just enjoy doing... but it's still a privilege just the same, by law.
If your daughter just got her license, odds are you have a study guide from the DMV, give it a quick read through... I can pretty much guarantee it states as much somewhere in there, usually within the first page or two.
Funny how being a necessity isn't stopping government from things like proposing that it's revocation be used to punish parents whose kids are absent from school too often or deadbeat dads that don't pay their child support. Not that I support the "parents" in either case, but I don't see how their driving privilege's are related?
I do wail about that.
All of it's unconstitutional.
So is our money:
"No State shall ... emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts..."
And because the power to emit bills of credit, or to use anything but gold and silver are NOT - repeat: NOT - granted to the Federal government.... The tenth amendment makes paper money unconstitutional.
Evan, I have been reading your posts for quite some time now. And this is a very serious and genuine question - are you a Constitutional lawyer? I ask this because perhaps you are, and if that is the case, then we should all take your opinions a bit more seriously. If you are not, then your thoughts on the "constitutionality" of healthcare and everything else you rail against, are really just opinion - like everything else on these forums.
And if you and everyone else who are against universal healthcare are honest with yourselves, this isn't really about whether this reform is constitutional or otherwise. I am in this business, and it is all about taking money, big money, and more importantly control out of the hands of the private sector and into the hands of the public sector via regulation and reform. You have obviously not been on the side of coverage denial and cancellation that actually cost people their lives. This is or rather WAS a very real issue and it was indeed life and death for many people. The stories the liberals you hate spread about healthcare insurance companies cancelling policies back to inception when an insured develops a devastating illness (cancer, kidney disease, etc) are very real. And this happens for one reason - business doesn't want to lose and they "get off the risk" at any cost or rather they did prior to this reform you hate so much. You see, I can't imagine yourself or any other person for that matter, if faced with a devastating illness, just "accepting" a death sentence because the evil liberals imposed something that is in your mind "unconstitutional." In fact, unless you are mentally ill you wouldn't... and that makes you a hypocrite because you wouldn't apply the same ideals you preach to yourself...
Basically your first argument is: "If you ain't a constitutional lawyer, then your opinions on the constitution are nonsense".
This is such a disgusting thing to say. The very people who made the Constitution weren't constitutional lawyers!!! The reason the Constitution was written down was so that everyday people could read the damned thing and point out when their government was usurping their power!
Amendment 10 clearly states that those powers not given to the Federal government are reserved for the State governments. No where in A1S8 is Health care even mentioned. IF you want to argue that "general welfare" means "anything", then please to be reading The Federalist #41, where John Madison actually insults people who think this way as being illiterate.
Then you proceed to say "it's not REALLY about whether it's constitutional or not"...
... stop. YES IT IS. YES IT IS. IT IS ABOUT THAT EXACTLY.
Government is the negation of liberty. The Constitution was written to limit government, and thus preserve liberty. Thus, when the government does something unconstitutional, it is taking your freedom away.
This argument has EVERYTHING to do with Constitutionality. You said it yourself:
"...and more importantly control out of the hands of the private sector and into the hands of the public sector via regulation and reform."
THAT'S THE ARGUMENT OF CONSTITUTIONALITY!! YOU SAID IT YOURSELF!!
Amendment 10 in full:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
State vs Federal; Public vs Private... THESE ARE THE ARGUMENTS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY!!
Then you accuse me of hating my fellow man - "Obviously you've never had coverage denied"
I'm sorry that we live on THIS side of the Garden of Eden, but things cost money, and there is such a thing as "opportunity costs". All of the resources to make people healthy COULD have been used for something else, thus they require a cost.
I may have never been on the denial side of a hospital, but I sure as hell have had a Grand Mal seizure which ended up costing over $6,000 in total coverage.
But, luckily, I was smart enough to have saved up money and to have invested in health insurance. Health insurance shaved off about $4000.
Quote: "it was indeed life and death for many people."
Yeah, so is finding food, having shelter, having clothes, and, in most cases today, having running water and electricity.
But... why aren't these things being made public? The hypocrite is the one who demands Federal Health Care, but does NOT demand Federal Food Provisions.
More accusations of me hating people!
Quote: "The stories the liberals you hate"
I hate NO one. I merely hate idiocy. To claim that we can just "outlaw scarcity" is nothing short of idiocy.
But to address your claims about insurance being evil: why are prices so expensive in health care? One of the leading reasons is government intervention. The ADA, APA, Medicaid etc etc. all raise prices because the government can just steal money from its duped masses and raise prices.
Thus, prices wouldn't be so high if government got out of the way. Thus Insurance companies could actually cover people without government.
But going even farther: insurance companies are going to LOVE the new legislation!!! It pretty much FORCES people to BUY health care!! Prices will SKYROCKET!!! People won't have a choice to NOT buy health insurance!!
I wish people didn't have a choice when it came to paying ME money... that'd be sweet!
Quit accusing me, point-blank, of being evil. I don't hate people; the issue IS about Constitutionality; and the arguments you propose are contradictory.
IF you can call me evil and hate filled, surely I can call you a jerk.
No Evan, I am not saying your arguments are nonsense or even that they are not rooted in your reality. All I am saying is that your preach like a Constitutional lawyer. I have obviously taken very seriously your argument and your views on the constitutionality of this topic.
And I am not accusing you of being evil. All I accused of being was a hypocrite. Because I claimed, and I still stand behind this, you would rail at being denied coverage or being dropped by an insurer when you needed it most. And this is a huge provision in the new reform law.
And using your logic, the Libertarian's logic, the government telling business what it can do at any level is unconstitutional. So you eliminate any government mandate, and government "strings" on health insurance and you go back to: coverage denials, cancellations back to inception, and all the other "crap" that you had until very recently.
Should the Constitution be construed exactly as written - or interpreted how it was or would be intended? Keep in mind, medicine in1800 was more more superstition than science, technology didn't exist and the reality in 2011 of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" could not have been included in the provisions of the Us Constitution.
you keep using the word "constitutional" to mean "ethical".
"And using your logic, the Libertarian's logic, the government telling business what it can do at any level is unconstitutional."
No, a Libertarian would say that such an action is Constitutional, IF the government in question is a STATE government. But it is WRONG to do so, and it is inefficient to do so.
They would claim it Constitutional because the State government is allowed to do so under the 10th amendment. That's the definition of Constitutional.
But if it were the Federal government, then, yes, it would be unconstitutional.
I am MANDATED to buy insurance, or I can't drive.
No, you are MANDATED to buy insurance IF you drive.
This isn't brain surgery.
You are mandated to buy car insurance, not to protect yourself, but to protect others that you may injure. Also you don't have to own a car. By the way, you can usually put up a bond in place of car insurance. So car insurance is not a good comparison to the health care plan, which really isn't insurance at all but welfare. Insurance is to manage risk , not dole out cash when you ask for it.
Don't do such inane and hopeless mental gymnastics.
The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT have the power to force you to buy ANY insurance at all.
STATE governments DO.
But they should NOT exercise this power because it's tyrannical.
(Freedom is easy to explain, tyranny requires gymnastics)
I'm an independant... but the left's fundamentally flawed thinking on this bill is just astounding! Case in point:
"I have no right to health care, but you have the right to an assault weapon with a 30 clip."
Who ever said you don't have a "right to healthcare"? One BIG difference you are overlooking is that, the goober-mint is not MANDATING we all go out and purchase an "assault weapon with a 30 clip."
You have a RIGHT to buy a gun, but no mandate to.
You have a RIGHT to vote, but no mandate to.
You have a RIGHT to purchase health insurance, but now... also a MANDATE to do so, as well.
The present administration claims they have the constitutionally appointed power to enforce this mandate due to the "interstate commerce clause"... really?
'Cuz last time I checked, a huge part of the reason health insurance is so expensive is the simple fact we're not ALLOWED to purchase it out of state!
If we were, it would blow the market wide open, creating competition which would force insurance companies to lower their rates and be more accomodating to situations such as pre-existing conditions.
But regardless... the fundamental flaw there is, how can you justify using the INTERstate commerce clause, as in, "across state lines", to mandate something which is required to be purchased INTRAstate? There are no two ways about it, it's illegal.
Actually that is wrong economically speaking. As was stated in another thread. It will drive up prices in areas where it is cheaper due to income levels in that area- making it harder for those lower income people to buy.
Healthcare, education is not constitutional. It is responsibility of each individuals to take care of self not rest of the country pay for it.
All above is in socialistic Soviet Constitution. Government want to run everything to get money and do not know how to run it.
I look at the "healthcare" debate today as, 100 years or so ago, the debate over government regulation in the rail industry...
Monopoly, which is the way our current health care industry is run, is against the principles of capitalism.....or so I thought....
Our government, for at least the past 100 years or so, has (in good times) worked to undermine the power that private enterprise can have over the American people, and the corrupting power it can hold over the government....
The "Big Four" railroading paid politicians railed against federal government regulation....and I am sure if I was able to listen to the debates on the floors of the Senate and House back then it would sound a whole lot like what I was listening to yesterday on CSPAN concerning the health care law...
Times change, the arguments change, but the preferred dominance of the monopoly does not...
What is or is not constitutional will be decided by the Supreme Court who, the last time I checked, is the only body in our government authorized to make those kinds of decisions....
Evan, you always rail against the "unconstitutionality" of taxation...
So, I suppose you want to go back to the days of the Articles of Confederation, when the federal government had to ask each state for money....in the hopes of receiving something?
That was a failed system...and a major point to the subsequent national alignment behind the Constitution was to give the federal government the power to take money instead of waiting for the states to get the job done (which they weren't able to do)...
Am I wrong on this point?
how were the Articles of Confederation a failed system?
It worked for about a decade until Hamilton bought a few favors.
Taxation is not unconstitutional. Using tax money to do unconstitutional things is unconstitutional.
I.e.: taxing to establish a post office, while I disagree with the use of money, is constitutional.
Taxing to have a standing army, which we're doing every day, is unconstitutional.
Taxing to pay health care is also unconstitutional.
The constitutionality of an issue has nothing to do with my own personal beliefs, it simply has to do with what the constitution says.
For whatever it's worth, my argument... and many others, is NOT that our present health care system is "perfect" or not in desperate need of reform.
But this PARTICULAR reform is not the answer. And yes, it is in fact an obvious over-reach and a violation of the powers granted to our federal government by the Constitution.
I have still yet to hear one logical rebuttal of the fact you can NOT justify regulating intrastate affairs via the interstate commerce clause. That, and that alone, is more than enough reason for this bill to be repealed.
As soon as someone is able to provide me with a logical and legal argument to that point which actually holds water, I will happily concede it and move on to debating others.
Evan G Rogers is just being consistent, he is an anarchist - no government -- free for all.
And the more I see out of our government, the more I'm beginning to agree with him....
While I'm not QUITE ready to make that particular leap just yet, it is, at times at least, tempting! lmao
that's very encouraging.
Thank you for that. For real.
I get on these HubPages and I'm pretty sure that no one is listening to me at all.
even a simple household needs laws and somebody to govern them, how much more with millions of people who act like children,
I have been listening to the health care reform debate atnausim. Everyone agrees that some type of reform is needed but not the Obamacare why? Because this bill will stop Insurance Companies from taking advantage of consumers. It also stops states from taking away medical, like what has happen in Arizona. The problem with this health care bill stemed from congress not being clear on what should be in the bill. The public option was a favorite, but that would require a heavy participation. This confusion and indecisiveness gave the opposition time to debunk the bill with lies, like death panels, funding abortions. Everything negative was thrown at this bill. It became convoluted.
This bill is simple. Children can be kept on parents insurance until age 26. Insurance companies will have to insure you even with pre-excisting conditons. You cannot be droped if you get a serious condition. Your premiums cannot be raised if you get sicker. It filled in a "donut hole" this was a prevision in Medicare Part "D" that prevented seniors from purchasing drugs after a certain amount had been paid out. It also provided for end of life consultation, which doctors billed Medicare for. This is the "death panel" republicans lied about. The government would give assistance to those that needed it. This bill also gave employers incentives to supply insurance to all employees. Medical cost was sky rocketing due to the fact that millions of people received medical help who did not have some type of coverage, the government has picked up the tab.
The Insurance Companies did not like this and lobbied to have it stoped. Thier reign of terror would cease. However, as the democrates have proved more people would be insured, thereby giving them more customers. Unfortunately, there were deals that had to be made with AMA and Pharmacuticals, this was not an easy bill ...no one before Pres. Obama was able to get this much accomplished.
What I can't understand is why people who do not have medical Insurance are against this bill. Why would someone who cannot take thier child to the doctor, would coalesce with someone who has Insurance. The opposition has brain washed these poor souls into thinking that future generations will be in debt, and (we) don't need this now....but they have thiers. Who's the foolish one? The truth is the CBO has proved that this bill will save trillions over time, but the opposition has told you that the CBO is wrong. Funny, when the opposition wants to prove it's merits, the CBO walks on water..but not when it's against thier interest.
Since Nancy Pelosi was intrumental in drafting this bill, the opposition had to demean her. All of a sudden it was the Obama, Pelosi, Reid agenda. So what? was thier agenda to harm the American people? No! The opposition threw everyhing negative at this bill, which if you use your heads and think, who will be getting the short end of the stick...ignorant and foolish people, as usual.
And just in case you don't know, there is a mandate in the bill, but it does not carry any penalties. Pres. Obama had to pass some type of medical reform, because George W. Bush instituted Medicare Part "D". Part D is not just for prescriptions, Part D includes medical. Part D takes normal Medicare that was administered by the government and gave it to private Insurance companies. People were given 6 months to establish a plan with an Insurance Company or loose thier benefits. Now the Insurance Companies were not doing this out of the kindness of thier hearts. This is the fraud and waste Obama talked about.
Medicare Part "D" cost trillions of dollars, which George W. Bush did not put in the budget. Therefore, when Obama took office he was hit with this expense that had not been budgeted. Something had to be done quickly. The problem again was that Obama put this out 4 years, some items have started, but this gave the Insurance Companies time to raise thier premiums..giving the opposition ammunition to lie again, saying the bill will raise premiums when inacted. Wake up people!
This health care bill is completely George W Bush's fault.
I know half of the voters in this country would believe that.
Coincidentally they would be the ones who voted for Obama.
While I agree with some of what you've stated, other things I have to respectfully disagree with.
For one, you are dead wrong that the insurance companies are against it, in fact, as you pointed out, they are the ones who stand to gain the MOST from it! While, yes, they may have to begin providing coverage and services they weren't formerly required to, they will also have millions of new customers, many of whom are younger and have zero medical issues to worry about paying for, paying them what amounts to pure profit.
So how is this bill doing anything to "fight evil corporations"? It's not hurting them, it's helping them to stuff their pockets like no other legislation ever passed in the history of the United States. When in our history has there ever been a requirement to spend your money on a service or product offered by a private company? Liberals accuse conservatives of being in the pocket of "big oil" and than pass something like this? Tsk tsk.
Truth be told, in a sense, helping big oil IS helping all of us, provided it keeps gas prices down, which is not only beneficial to everyone who drives, but also keeps the price of every product delivered via mechanized transport in the form of air, land, or sea... in other words, EVERY SINGLE THING you buy, down through lower shipping costs.
Two, the reason many don't have coverage now is because they don't WANT it. Believe it or not, that used to be an option in our supposedly free country. And how do you figure there's "no mandate" to get coverage? Either you get it... and prove to the IRS of all people that you did... or you pay extra "taxes" ("penalty" or "fine" being more accurate terms... but, than that would equate to honesty) that end up being more than the coverage would have cost.
One could still refuse to purchase insurance, but that would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Like I said, I agree... our health care system is broken and needs to be looked at, but this bill is not the answer. Ultimately, it's not a health CARE bill, it's a health INSURANCE bill... in more ways than one.
Shynsly, you just stated what the opposition to health care has brain washed you with..it's ilogical. You must buy car insurance, at lest liability. There will not be a fine for not purchasing health care.
Also, you state something that was first thrown around, "people don't want health care'". Most people don't want it because they can't afford it.
There are more families with children, who pray that thier kids don't get sick, thay have no money, or they have to put off taking the kids until the situation gets worse. Have you heard of the mobile clinics that are privately funded?
Where ever that have a free clinic, they are usually over run with people who need help. Lives have been saved by these clinics. What's wrong with a "health Insurance bill"......as long as it helps. Time to take your head out of the sand.
"Shynsly, you just stated what the opposition to health care has brain washed you with..it's ilogical. You must buy car insurance, at lest liability. There will not be a fine for not purchasing health care."
You only have to buy insurance if you drive a car.
It is not required that you buy insurance simply because you own one.
Yes, there is a fine for not buying health care in this bill, the administration is now calling that a tax.
I do my best to remain civil in debate, and to look at things objectively. With that said, you're accusing ME of being brainwashed? Meanwhile everything you've said sounds like it came straight out of a Robert Gibbs press conferance.
You use the same tired argument that auto insurance is somehow mandatory? How exactly do you figure that, show me the statute that states I MUST buy automotive insurance or I will be fined an equivalent or higher amount than if I had just purchased it in the first place.
Talk about brainwashing, it was the people pushing this bill who originally tried to make that argument, and when it failed, they let it go... yet all their supporters have yet to follow suit.
The only time you are "required" to purchase auto insurance is if you choose to drive. As we've already covered in this forum, driving is not a right, it's a privilege. There are many who choose not to drive, and therefore are not required to buy insurance.
While I suppose a person could choose not to breath, it would not be terribly condusive to continued survival... yet that is the only way I can now elect not to have health insurance (or pay an equal or greater... "tax").
Beyond that, the automotive insurance you are "required" to purchase is not to protect yourself directly, it is to cover the other people and their property whom you may cause harm to while driving. Therefore, the government "mandate" is not to protect you, it is to prevent or resolve disputes between you and other citizens, much like the role of law enforcement.
As far as people not wanting health CARE... who said that? I stated people used to be allowed not to purchase health INSURANCE if they chose not to, but contrary to popular belief, health insurance and health CARE are not mutually exclusive.
For a healthy person who only typically needs a routine check up or occasional visit to the doctor in an average year, it is by far and away more economically feasible to just pay out of pocket.
And are you really going to use this tired argument that people without health insurance or the means to pay out of pocket are just somehow... for lack of a better word... "screwed"?
For people who actually could afford health insurance but elect not to purchase it because it would take a huge chunk out of their entertainment budget... that's their right, or at least it used to be.
For people who sincerely can not afford health insurance, their income (or lack there of) puts them at a level in which there are already several Federal and State run programs to provide them with free or low cost medical care.
You are 100% correct - the insurance did or will get millions of new customers and actually they are "privately" very happy about government "forcing" people into their rolls. And what's even better is that government may end up subsidizing these private insurance premiums. So yeah, they are tickled silly about it - privately. But let me tell you the parable on the guy who went to the smorgasbord, ate everything on the menu, and then wanted more - he satisfied his desire until he made himself sick. Even though insurance companies stand to win big with current healthcare reform, they want more. They want the control of being able to dump "bad risks" off the books. They want to retain the power to be able to cap lifetime expenditures. They want it all. And what's new? And why not? It's good for business but not so good for the consumer...
Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies
June 05, 2009|By Theresa Tamkins
This year, an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy. Many people may chalk up that misfortune to overspending or a lavish lifestyle, but a new study suggests that more than 60 percent of people who go bankrupt are actually capsized by medical bills.
Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50 percent in a six-year period, from 46 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2007, and most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will be published in the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/heal … =PM:HEALTH
even though this is an older article the point is,people are swamped by medical bills whether they have insurance or not.. bankruptcy affects everyone
"bankruptcy affects everyone"
And soon it will affect the U.S.Government.
Bankruptcy wouldn't be just from health care dude. How bought the trillions in loans to McDonald's GE Harley Davidson etc?
How about the trillions on PORK useless defense projects?? Why don;t uhave a cow over that?
And seriously if your going to give the constitution BS then I suppose your not for changing the 14th amendment either right?? You know anchor babies that's another tea party fav- so hypocritical. Cuz if we can change it to for one thing we can change it for another.
Who says we're not!? Bush started the bailouts with this TARP B.S., and Obama just picked right up where he left off... all this "too big to fail crap", irks me to no end. In a true free market, the market will regulate itself, which is precisely what it was trying to do, until the goober-mint had to get involved.
GM and Chrysler pandered to their labor unions while failing to keep up with the times on what their customers wanted, Banks and Wall St played their games and lost... and 800 billion dollars later, where are we? Watching most of them chomping at the bit to get right back to their b.s. (some of them already have).
Every last one of those companies should be nothing more than liquidated assets and a footnote in history... as they would be, had the government not gotten involved. (Sorry Mr. Hunter if that gave you a sense of de ja vu).
However, that is not the subject of THIS debate, so can we stop changing the subject, beating around the bush, arguing about "morality" of this or that, and get back to explaining how exactly the health INSURANCE bill is in any way, shape or form in compliance with the U.S. Constitution, please?
Few are saying we don't need reform... but we need health CARE reform... which this bill is not.
Iam happy that you try to remain civil, in a debate..there is no reason to do other wise. Thank you for the compliment, although Robert Gibbs can be annoying..he is knowledgeabe.
You are correct, auto Ins is mandatory only if your drive, however because this mandate is protected by the 10th Amenment, it is better for you if you don't drive now, but plan on driving sometime in the future, you should purchase "non owners insurance" or face a penalty. (I found out the hard way, LOL).
I realize that the Obama administration is trying to use the interstate commerce law to mandate the purchase of health Insurance, it won't work. That is why there is a no penalty clause.
...if you just look above, I believe you wrote.."Two, the reason many don't have coverage now is because they don't want it"...I thought that's what you wrote...are you shynsly? I apologize if not. LOL you are funny, breathing is a choice.
Liability car insurance protects the other driver, but goes deeper, the law usually doesn;t give a fig about you..this law protects tge states interest (Health, safety and morality). It would be nice ifthe various laws were for our benefit..alas..that's not so, but I digress.
Healtth Insurance and Health Care are like two peas in a pod. Without Health Ins. there would be no Health Care. No prenatal care, well baby care, preventive medicine, disease prevention etc.
You say if a person only needs to see a doctor maybe once a year, rather than pay a lump sum that takes away from other things, a person should just pay cash. If no cash, the alternative is to seek a Federal or Government program that helps people who are "screwed". That's the problem, there are too many people who are just screwed. The high demand has put a strain on governmet resources.
You sound like you don't have any health problems (God bless you), but there are many who are not as blessed.
Yes, the Insurance Companies love the idea of "fresh meat", but have you wondered why during this repeal effort, no Insurance Companies have been heard from? They have backed off, and let
the republicans fight the good fight. The Insurance Companies have an ulterior motive. They know that people want to purchase out of state polocies, so the republicans will strip out the "Consumer Protection Laws", they will initiate across state lines Insurance. If the republicans are successful, consumers will get what is called "junk polocies" circumventing state regulations. As I have always said, we need this Health Care Bill as it is......NOW.
Just a quick note on the subject:
Apparently 26 states think the health care bill is unconstitutional:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/ … lawsuit_3/
Undeniable facts, thanks for sharing. People should be allowed to be free and vote. What I find odd, is how the rest of the people that disagree with them, respond to that reality. Its part of why the constitution is so important in the first place, to ensure freedoms for all people. The people know best how handle their freedoms, and are looking out for their best life and that of their children.
Oh there is no doubt they do, but what you aren't hearing much about but is quite the reality is the following: these states are quietly accepting money from Washington to help patch their state Medicaid deficits. See hypocrite.
are you calling me a hypocrite? or the states?
If you were calling me a hypocrite, i never made a hypocritic statement.
If you were calling the states hypocrites, it should be pluralized.
Aside from that...
... I agree! Down with medicaid!
Is my paying for congress and the senate to have free health care on MY dime constitutional?
If you listen to the liberal hacks on HubPages, then the answer is "it doesn't matter what the laws or Constitution say, all that matters is what the Supreme Court says".
But if you read the document, and make your own decisions, you'll find this passage:
"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States."
So, by the Constitution, the Congress is allowed to determine their own pay.
BUT! This passage was written back when Congressmen were appointed by State officials (i.e., the governor). This is why state's rights was such huge issue. With the stripping of state's rights, the state officials lost their ability to repeal their appointed congressmen.
In fact, there are numerous examples throughout pre-Civil war history of Congressmen being ripped out of office for voting incorrectly, and for raising to increase their own wages.
Basically the story is that the federal government realized that they could stay in power easier and receive more kickbacks if they cut the ties of state power.
That's why you don't learn that The Civil War ACTUALLY WAS all about state's rights. All they teach now is slavery.
Wake up to how you're being bamboozled! READ the Constitution!
You can blame Marshall for most of the Supreme Court idiocy.
You can blame Lincoln for his role in destroying how and why this country was formed.
There is an excellent article on health care reform by Atul Gawande entitled "Hot Spots" in the latest New Yorker. Gawande is arguably the most insightful investigator and writer on health care reform. His article describes a new approach being tried in Boston and several other places which uses statistical analysis to identify the heaviest and highest cost users of health care in a given group or hospital. In Camden, NJ, the top 1% of users are responsible for 1/3 of the health care costs. This "super-user" group is offered alternative primary care by a team of doctors, nurse practitioners, social workers and lay "health coaches" designed to help them recover from whatever is causing them to have repeated visits to the emergency room, repeated hospitalizations and repeated costly tests. The alternative according to Gawande is rationing due to the un-sustainability of the current rate of health cost increases.
[Unfortunately, only subscribers can access the full article.]
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011 … ct_gawande
by Judy Specht9 months ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new...
by SparklingJewel4 years ago
This legislation was covertly run through the system over the objections of at least half of the American people. The president justified it by saying that it didn’t raise our taxes. Now the Supreme Court has...
by Doug Hughes5 years ago
Sixth Circuit upholds ObamaCare mandate POSTED AT 1:15 PM ON JUNE 29, 2011 BY ED MORRISSEY "The decision got overlooked in all of the attention to Barack Obama’s press conference, but nonetheless this will...
by Susan Reid3 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces...
by Poppa Blues7 years ago
Don't take my word for it listen to an expert!The Truth About the Health Care BillsPosted August 12, 2009Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices...
by SparklingJewel6 years ago
I truly want to know if these are valid reasons...or are they perspective on what "could" happen, or just totally absurd possibilities. If you have proof to validate or deny these reasonings, I genuinely would...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.