Thread: Constitutionality of Obamacare

I have only read the first few post of this thread.

I believe you shouldn't be asking whether this plan is unconstitutional. You should be asking whether a person has a right to good health. Essentially whether a person has a right to life. Every other developed first world nation on the planet has come to the conclusion that, yes people do have a right to good health. I agree. That is the real problem, the rest is just details.

Also, how did you come to the conclusion that this plan would be imposed on you? You could use a private insurer.

I just worry that the gov't won't be able to handle this well. Take a look at things like SS.

This is coming from a naive young college student, so please don't slit my throat in response. I know how you internet people can be.

The reason Obamacare doesn't have Obama's name on it is he didn't write any of it per se, he just gave a lot of speeches declaring that he'll veto anything else. I will admit it is a good political move- whether you like it or not- I'm indifferent. Here's the game plan basically:

Back in the day, Clinton wrote out a firm healthcare plan and it died in Congress because it was firm, and was viewed as a failure later down the road. Obama is changing two things- he's giving Congress flexibility, and taking his name off the bill- that way its more likely to pass (just like the Constitution- compromises will push it through easier than ultimatums) and doesn't have his name on it. The reason it is called Obamacare is in every speech he lays out guidelines for Congress, and says thats what he wants. And in a few speeches (can't remember which ones exactly I'll try and look em up) he stated either directly or indirectly that he'll veto anything that doesn't meet certain specifications.

This is why people say Congress is Obama's fingers- he's putting all the pressure on it to pass with certain guidelines. Though we can also see that they aren't entirely doing his bidding (and he really can't do anything about it) the biggest example being the Aug. 1st recess deadline.

unfortunately our healthcare system is a mess and the escalating costs are going to make fundamental reform a necessity. I'm a republican and dislike obama, but the reality is we have do something sometime soon or we're up a creek. And we can't keep bankrupting our companies, where healthcare is their biggest cost, when their foreign competition simply doesn't have that cost. And I think the assumption the US system is the best is a little parochial.

but abdicating this to a partisan, extreme left congress was stupid and now Obama has done his usual job of doing nothing but sounding visionary, and we need better than that.

I just wish both parties would quietly figure this out and come back with something in a year or two when they've had time to pull together a good system, and cut the bologne on this.

not including illegals is a little bit missing the point. hospitals don't turn down hurt/sick people, so we all pay for those that aren't covered, so they're covered whether it's official or not, and we're all paying for it indirectly if it's not accounted for directly. So it's not about whether the system pays for everyone - it's just whether you factor in the fact that you are paying for everyone into the upfront planning. generally accounting for reality up front leads to better planning IME.

If an illegal (maybe one that cleans your house) has a heart attack, do you really want the doctors to say "tough luck" and watch him die on the sidewalk? If you don't want that, you're paying for his treatment through higher premiums if the system doesn't cover it explicitly.

Originally Posted by ChickenBurrito

I have only read the first few post of this thread.

I believe you shouldn't be asking whether this plan is unconstitutional. You should be asking whether a person has a right to good health. Essentially whether a person has a right to life. Every other developed first world nation on the planet has come to the conclusion that, yes people do have a right to good health. I agree. That is the real problem, the rest is just details.

Also, how did you come to the conclusion that this plan would be imposed on you? You could use a private insurer.

I just worry that the gov't won't be able to handle this well. Take a look at things like SS.

This is coming from a naive young college student, so please don't slit my throat in response. I know how you internet people can be.

It will most certainly be imposed upon us. We are going to get taxed for it, and therefore it will be imposed upon us. And since when is it the government's job to take care of my health? That obligation is not included in the Constitution.

Also, did you all hear about the latest vote against the transparency of the health care bill? An amendment was proposed that the bill should be made public, posted on the internet, for 72 hours before a vote can take place, so that the public and the elected representatives could (GASP) ACTUALLY READ THE BILL BEFORE VOTING ON IT!!! This amendment was soundly defeated, largely through partisan voting, with one (1) Democrat siding with the Republicans voting in favor of the amendment (Democrats voting against it). THE REASON?? It would be too difficult to upload it onto the internet. REALLY???? SERIOUSLY???

If they can't handle uploading one file onto the internet, how can they seriously think they can handle the nationalization of the entire health care industry, and the running of the whole health care system??

We can't upload a file to the internet, but trust us to run the entire healthcare industry. Seriously, we can do it.

+20
Obama always seems to do nothing lol. Just "change" stuff. Only thing thats changed is the war was moved from Iraq to Afghanistan (still don't know why we're even there- you can't honestly tell me we're fighting al Qaeda still...) adn teh party in charge changed from Reps to Dems.

Lou is right- its easier to pay for preventative care for illegals than it is to pay for actual care for them in hospitals. And actually, even if you want to say let them die on the street, doctors are bound by the Hippocratic oath to help anyone in need. So whether you like it or not, the hospitals will treat them and someone has to foot the bill.

Do you think it was more that they actually can't do it, or rather because that was the best (/worst) excuse they could come up with because they potentially don't want us to see it? (Not taking sides... I feel like the Dems want to hide it and the Reps want to oppose the Dems simply to look better to their supporters/have moral high ground if the Dems get caught doign something bad)

Originally Posted by mhailey

It will most certainly be imposed upon us. We are going to get taxed for it, and therefore it will be imposed upon us. And since when is it the government's job to take care of my health? That obligation is not included in the Constitution.

Also, did you all hear about the latest vote against the transparency of the health care bill? An amendment was proposed that the bill should be made public, posted on the internet, for 72 hours before a vote can take place, so that the public and the elected representatives could (GASP) ACTUALLY READ THE BILL BEFORE VOTING ON IT!!! This amendment was soundly defeated, largely through partisan voting, with one (1) Democrat siding with the Republicans voting in favor of the amendment (Democrats voting against it). THE REASON?? It would be too difficult to upload it onto the internet. REALLY???? SERIOUSLY???

If they can't handle uploading one file onto the internet, how can they seriously think they can handle the nationalization of the entire health care industry, and the running of the whole health care system??

We can't upload a file to the internet, but trust us to run the entire healthcare industry. Seriously, we can do it.

Originally Posted by mhailey

did you all hear about the latest vote against the transparency of the health care bill? An amendment was proposed that the bill should be made public, posted on the internet, for 72 hours before a vote can take place, so that the public and the elected representatives could (GASP) ACTUALLY READ THE BILL BEFORE VOTING ON IT!!! This amendment was soundly defeated, largely through partisan voting, with one (1) Democrat siding with the Republicans voting in favor of the amendment (Democrats voting against it). THE REASON?? It would be too difficult to upload it onto the internet. REALLY???? SERIOUSLY???

.

Are you sure this is true? Sounds like one of those rumors that is so funny it spreads like wildfire, but are they really that nuts? If that's true, wow.

Originally Posted by khaos

+20
Obama always seems to do nothing lol. Just "change" stuff. Only thing thats changed is the war was moved from Iraq to Afghanistan (still don't know why we're even there- you can't honestly tell me we're fighting al Qaeda still...) adn teh party in charge changed from Reps to Dems.

Lou is right- its easier to pay for preventative care for illegals than it is to pay for actual care for them in hospitals. And actually, even if you want to say let them die on the street, doctors are bound by the Hippocratic oath to help anyone in need. So whether you like it or not, the hospitals will treat them and someone has to foot the bill.

And we have to get real. We either spend the money and show the commitment to kick out all illegals, or we admit that we want them here more than we don't want them here and deal with it. We can't accept their presence, hire them to do the yardwork or whatever to save some cash when it's convenient, and then complain that they should leave the country when they are sick. Either kick them out or accept that they are here.

When someone says we have a "right to good health," what exactly does that mean?

Does it mean we have a right to be born healthy? Not everyone is...

A right to remain healthy throughout our lives? Not everyone does...

Or does it mean that we have a right to receive treatment for our illnesses? Which, BTW, doesn't necessarily guarantee a return of good health.

Is "right to good health" a legal right? or a natural right? Or is it some other kind of right?

---------

Isn't the term "health care" a misnomer since healthy people generally require no care?

Isn't "disease treatment" a better term?

Originally Posted by GeauxLSU

Third, lumping illegals into the health care plan is just plain stupid. Either they become citizens and pay taxes or leave the country.

Originally Posted by loueedacat

If an illegal (maybe one that cleans your house) has a heart attack, do you really want the doctors to say "tough luck" and watch him die on the sidewalk? If you don't want that, you're paying for his treatment through higher premiums if the system doesn't cover it explicitly.

Originally Posted by khaos

So whether you like it or not, the hospitals will treat them and someone has to foot the bill.

Technically you are already all footing the bill as the "tough on illegals" Republicans included a $250000 a year per hospital outlay to cover the illegal immigrants in their 2003 healthcare bill.