Thread: Constitutionality of Obamacare

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

My 2 cents:

As to the constitutionality question: the idea of requiring everyone to (financially) participate in the health care system seems to me to not be so much different from the government's requirement that everyone is required to pay taxes, pay into social security, etc. You can't opt out of social security (some minor, self-funding exceptions nothwithstanding) yet you might want to fund your own retirement if you had the option to do so. But you don't, yet that is not assailed as being violative of the constitution. I am forced to pay taxes to send my neighbor's children to school-is that unconstitutional as well if I have no children of my own?

Also, as to the idea that it's unconstitutional to require everyone to participate in the health care system: everyone does in fact "participate" in the system. At some point in our lives, virtually all of us receive medical attention. Even if you wanted to be personally responsible for your own medical bills and therefore didn't want to be forced to purchase health insurance, unless you are a multi-millionaire, very, very few of us could afford to pay the actual medical costs for such things as catastrophic injuries that may occur thru no fault of your own, or for the type of disease diagnosis and treatment care that everyone now receives (MRI's, chemo, surgery, etc.). So if someone who makes a 6 figure income and who decides not to obtain health care insurance is severely injured in a car accident or comes down with a horrible disease, they will not be able to cover their own medical care. Since we are virtually all "in the same boat" in this regard, unless you're willing to forgo receiving medical treatment when you suffer a heart attack or are diagnosed with lymphoma, you're going to access the health care system.

If you have no issue with a law forcing the population to purchase a private product (health insurance), then you should have no issue with this:

South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to Make Point About Health Law - FoxNews.com

If the government can force people to purchase private health insurance, then they can force people to purchase guns.

as far as social security/medicare, I also don't feel that these are constitutional, or legal. If I were to open and investment scheme like social security I would be put in jail for creating a Ponzi scheme, but the government does it and it somehow is legal.

Originally Posted by mhailey

If you have no issue with a law forcing the population to purchase a private product (health insurance), then you should have no issue with this:

South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to Make Point About Health Law - FoxNews.com

If the government can force people to purchase private health insurance, then they can force people to purchase guns.

as far as social security/medicare, I also don't feel that these are constitutional, or legal. If I were to open and investment scheme like social security I would be put in jail for creating a Ponzi scheme, but the government does it and it somehow is legal.

Actually it'd be more like requiring people to take gun safety classes, but whatever. The law doesn't force you to have anything and you can choose not to have health care for $95/yr and that wouldn't be applicable until 2014. Why you wouldn't want health care is beyond me, though, so I consider that a trivial tax for people with questionable judgment.

And you always have the option of moving to a country without a national health care system. Oh, wait...

Social security is an investment scheme? Right, nobody has benefited from that system over the last 75 years. You should look up what a Ponzi scheme is and how they all have limited lifespans for a reason.

I still can't figure out where the constitution says we can or can't have national health care. Some of my friends say the Swiss model is pretty good. Others say the insurance company involvement over there is too "involved".

Might be best to find one of the reasonable methods already in use, and simply copy it. Therein lies the rub, of course.

I do think that national health care is on the way, so let's try to find a model that we can live with.

Edit: I'm all for mandatory gun ownership. Worked ok in Kennesaw, GA.

Originally Posted by mhailey

If you have no issue with a law forcing the population to purchase a private product (health insurance), then you should have no issue with this:

South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to Make Point About Health Law - FoxNews.com

If the government can force people to purchase private health insurance, then they can force people to purchase guns.

as far as social security/medicare, I also don't feel that these are constitutional, or legal. If I were to open and investment scheme like social security I would be put in jail for creating a Ponzi scheme, but the government does it and it somehow is legal.

I fail to see the analogy. As I tried to point out in my OP, the rationale for requiring universal participation in the health care system rests on the idea that virtually everyone "participates" in the health care system at some point in their lives, whether it be at the time of birth; or via regular or emergency care; or at end of life care (which typically is the most expensive). Thus, the analogy to car insurance, where everyone who drives a car is required to carry insurance. While some people don't drive and aren't required to carry insurance, virtually everyone has access to, and receives, health care at some point, so the requirement for universal coverage is really no different.

The "gun purchase" analogy, while mildly amusing, doesn't hold up to scrutiny, since there is no virtual universal participation in the fire arms industry by most Americans as there is for health care.

As to your opinion regarding the constitutionality of social security or medicare: while you are certainly entitled to your opinion on these programs, the overwhelming majority of Americans are not interested in ending these programs, so you're a bit out of the mainstream on this (which you have every right to be...). But why stop with ss and medicare? why should I be forced to pay taxes so your kids can attend public school? why should those who don't drive be forced to pay taxes for road maintenance? the list could go on and on, but in the end we'd have a real mess on our hands if you take this idea to its logical conclusion.

This whole issue is an interesting exercise and whether the current plan survives or not in the end it is immaterial. The way things are going now it's only a matter of time before the expense of both medical care and insurance will grow until it reaches a tipping point and most folks simply will not be able to afford either medical care or insurance worth anything. At that point all the current political rhetoric will be forgotten and there will be a clamor for the Govt to do something.

Republicans Vote To Repeal Obama-Backed Bill That Would Destroy Asteroid Headed For Earth | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

"It is incredible how as soon as a people become subject, it
promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom
that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it,
obeying so easily and willingly that one is led to say that this
people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement."
— Etienne de la Boetie

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
Commonly quoted on many websites, this quotation is actually from Gerald Ford's August 12th, 1974 address to Congress. Also attributed to Davy Crockett.

Government can give nothing but what it first takes from someone else.

Originally Posted by WJF

Government can give nothing but what it first takes from someone else.

Could you explain how your post addresses the constitutionality of Obamacare? I'd reply otherwise but I don't want to put words in your keyboard

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

... analogy about healthcare being the same as other government programs ...

All the things you mention are public programs. Healthcare is (at least for now) private. In the example of schools, it would be more analogous to a situation where there were no public schools, and the government was mandating that people pay to bring their children to private school.

In my opinion, the law as it stands is unconstitutional.
If this country wants to go to public healthcare, I'd much rather see them just do it instead of messing around trying to make the insurance industry "fair".
(No, I don't want public healthcare, but it would be preferable to "Obamacare" IMHO)

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Could you explain how your post addresses the constitutionality of Obamacare? I'd reply otherwise but I don't want to put words in your keyboard

I'm sorry. I posted in haste since I was late for work. I had just discovered this thread and had read so much that my head was spinning from all the different points being brought up.

However, your first post seemed to remove the Constitution from the discussion.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

who cares about the Contitution? people need affordable insurance, Obama says yes we can, and that's the bottom line

Now, that seems to move the topic to what role the government is to play in directing/controlling our lives. If the government is to provide "affordable insurance" how will they do that and fund it? The gov has no way to earn money. It has to get it somewhere and that is either through taxes (we pay) or through debt (borrow). It will extract funds from the productive citizens and use it to provide essentials for the unproductive. (The last two parts of my post)

Originally Posted by WJF

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
Commonly quoted on many websites, this quotation is actually from Gerald Ford's August 12th, 1974 address to Congress. Also attributed to Davy Crockett.

Government can give nothing but what it first takes from someone else.

Health care to unfortunates used to be provided by private charities (church operated hospitals/clinics) and no one was turned away. People dealt with doctors and hospitals directly and costs were reasonable. Now, because of government regulations regarding insurance companies and bureaucratic red tape costs are unreasonable. The more the government is involved the worse it gets. There is a growing number of doctors that offer discounts (sometimes 50%) for direct payment and bypassing insurance companies. I have had minor surgery this way while self-employed and uninsured. Obamacare will outlaw this and force costs to go up even more. Older doctors say that they will just retire or move out of the country.

Actually, many people still care about the Constitution. It was generally considered the supreme law of the land at the time it was written. It was also considered to be a restraint on the Federal Government. People were endowed by their Creator with rights not given those rights by the government. The 10th Amendment says that "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."

Free people are not servants of their government. How can anyone be compelled to purchase any good or service against their will and be considered FREE? How can someones property be taken against their will and given to someone else without being considered enslaved? (The first quote of my post)

Originally Posted by WJF

"It is incredible how as soon as a people become subject, it
promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom
that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it,
obeying so easily and willingly that one is led to say that this
people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement."
— Etienne de la Boetie

Many of the other posts were defending or disregarding the constitutionality of the Health Care Bill by holding up Social Security, public schools, etc. which by the same token are arguably just as un-constitutional as Obamacare. As our economy becomes worse the funding for all of these programs is drying up as well.

I am sorry for sounding off topic, but it appeared that we had already moved into political philosophy and away from constitutionality. This subject touches on so many issues that it is easy to lose your way.
Stepping down now. I apologize for my disjointed post and any misunderstanding. I'll go shave now.