Thread: Constitutionality of Obamacare

Originally Posted by honedright

Pretty much free...what does that mean? The Dentist gets paid, yes? In my experience, only children think that things are free. Adults understand that someone, somewhere, has to pay the bill.

Yes. I pay. Everyone pays. Part of what I pay in taxes goes to medicare.
this way, everyone is covered, and I still pay less then what decent coverage in the US costs. Our system does not involve lawyers or insurance company profits. This means that you pay your share, and then it is essentially free. Whether I go to the doc 1 time or 10 times, it only costs a couple of bucks. And if I need an MRI, I can get one for free as well. It doesn't cost anything extra.

Originally Posted by honedright

What happens if one of your countrymen refuses to have a "required" dental procedure?

Are you intentionally trying to misunderstand?
Of course you are perfectly allowed to refuse a root canal treatment. Good luck doing something with the mind numbing pain.

You are not required to accept any treatment. What I meant was that it is not realistic to expect people to forego such treatments willingly or easily.

Most if not all people will choose for early treatment instead of putting it off until it is too late, because of the cost. Not only will less money be spent in the end, but major cost will be prevented later on, since dental infections can cause many serious secondary issues (on account of the direct link between teeth and the bloodstream).

Originally Posted by honedright

Adults understand that someone, somewhere, has to pay the bill.

I don't think you can take this for granted. The federal budget deficit continues to grow. I sure wish they'd hurry up and cut out that wasteful spending that already exists that was proposed as a way to help pay for the house bill

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

The refusing party gets politely punched in the teeth

The ol' alternative dental care

Originally Posted by honedright

Pretty much free...what does that mean? The Dentist gets paid, yes? In my experience, only children think that things are free. Adults understand that someone, somewhere, has to pay the bill.

When i get to the doctor here in Europe, i've already paid for that. Simple.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This "elastic clause" and the 10th amendment are always at odds, but for at least the past 100 years, the elastic clause has won out. Basically, Congress can pass any law that it sees fit so long as it does not violate some other part of the constitution. What constitutes violation is up to the Supreme Court. Congress can even pass laws that conflict with other laws(!)... which usually end up in the Supreme Court, as well.

There is absolutely nothing in the constitution preventing the Congress from regulating health insurance or creating a public health insurance program. Medicare is precisely a public health insurance program. Obama is proposing a far less extensive system than even Medicare.

If we did not have the elastic clause and the federal government could not extend its reach as it has, we would not have anything resembling a modern society or economy. If you think through the implications of actually delegating all of those powers to the states, it's a disaster.

This is really a non-issue. : )

Ah! the elastic clause. Read it again.

All it is supposed to do is state that congress is the body which makes tha laws at the federal level to carry out the functions enumerated in the rest of the document. This interpetation would mean that it is not at odds with but further defined by the 10'th ammendment. Our founders did not write a document that contradicts itself in so obvious a way, they were not that stupid.

Because people have been abusing this claus and this document for the last hunred years is a reason for us to do the same? I don't think so! it is time for the federal govenment to be put back in its place, well under the thumb of the states and they in turn under complete control of the people.

Well, considering the 10th amendment was added a number of years after the ratification of the constitution, it's completely reasonable that they are at odds. Not contradicted... but at odds.

The elastic clause is also quite clear. Perhaps you should read it again : ) Congress has the power to create departments and officers -- this statement indicates that it thus has the power to create laws that affect said departments and officers.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Ah! the elastic clause. Read it again.

All it is supposed to do is state that congress is the body which makes tha laws at the federal level to carry out the functions enumerated in the rest of the document. This interpetation would mean that it is not at odds with but further defined by the 10'th ammendment. Our founders did not write a document that contradicts itself in so obvious a way, they were not that stupid.

Because people have been abusing this claus and this document for the last hunred years is a reason for us to do the same? I don't think so! it is time for the federal govenment to be put back in its place, well under the thumb of the states and they in turn under complete control of the people.

Originally Posted by bromion

Well, considering the 10th amendment was added a number of years after the ratification of the constitution, it's completely reasonable that they are at odds. Not contradicted... but at odds.

An amendment cannot be at odds with anything- the amendments supersede prior law. That is why they are called AMENDments. They AMEND the law. They are not in addition to, but instead of.

Originally Posted by khaos

An amendment cannot be at odds with anything- the amendments supersede prior law. That is why they are called AMENDments. They AMEND the law. They are not in addition to, but instead of.

Yes, but any amendment/ law made shall, according to the Supremacy Clause (Article VI - section 2), "...be made in Pursuance thereof..."

The entire clause:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

I don't buy that this health care take over is Constitutional.

the "elastic" clause only states that Congress can pass law, but those laws still have to comply with the Constitution.

The commerce clause was created so that interstate trade would not be unduly constrained by State laws (like i said before, to avoid New York imposing a tariff against goods imported from North Carolina), not to nationalize an entire industry.

The "general welfare" provision it is the justifiction for the imposition of taxes, and not a carte blanch grant of power to the Federal Government to see that every whim and desire of the voters is given to them. In other words the imposition of taxes have to be for the general welfare of the United States, and for a Constitutional purpose.

Further, even if this somehow is upheld as constitutional, it is clearly a "taking" of "private property." If I hold stock in any health care institution, or health insurance company, and the value of that stock declines because of the governmental nationalization of health care, then I am entitled to just compensation for the taking of my property. The Federal Government cannot withstand the amount of money which would have to be paid for the taking of private property.

As for calling my original question silly, what a snide, egocentric comment, not substantiated with any logic.

Matt