Thread: Constitutionality of Obamacare

Originally Posted by WJF

If the government is to provide "affordable insurance" how will they do that and fund it?

I have no idea, but that sounds so political. Why do you guys have to bicker over details, just get behind our new president and give him a chance... Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!

special note: The spelling "Contitution" was copied from the first post in the thread before it was edited. I have also seen it elsewhere in the forum, even on razors

It wouldn't be so bad if I didn't think that either side had good points to make on the subject. The whole damn system is screwed up and no one wants to fix the real problems that are at the bottom of many others. As long as Corporations are considered people and can anonymously throw as much money as they please at whatever politician will work for them, no politician will really work for "the better interest of the people." Politicians are so focused on job creation with the intent of creating new markets (green jobs, new energy, etc...), and while these are not bad ideas, it does nothing to focus on the fact that millions of jobs every year are relocated out of the united states. Sure lets create some jobs, but lets FOCUS on bringing jobs back to the US. I am with those who say lets let everyone pay, not just some......for instance, I pay social security tax on 100% of what measly income I make, while someone who makes 200,000 year pays social security tax on 50% of what they make (only taxed up to 110,000). There is lots of talk about what our forefathers wanted, what they meant when they wrote the documents, and how they wanted us to live our lives....this holds little sway with me, when our "forefathers" thought women were property and blacks were not even human beings. That is why there are amendments to the constitution, to amend and make clear that which is not.

As far as the constitution goes, its all messed up anyways:

It is "we the people" not "we the coorperations." The laws should be for the good of the people, who make up the coorperations, not the entities themselves. Last time I checked, it was called free speech (as in vocal emulation) not free crazy happy money time for companies with millions to throw around. Where is the outcry for that.

Warrantless spying and wiretapping is also unconstitutional, but where is/was the outcry for that.

Imprisoning humans indefinitely without charging them or bringing them to fair trial is unconstitutional. Where is the outcry for that.

I am mandated to buy car insurance, to protect others and myself, and I am fined (much more than $97) if I do not have it. Where is the outcry for this, it seems just like the new law.

We don't even have constitutional amendments stating that women and minorities are equals.

Insurance, media, IT and other corporate entities hold distinct monopolies throughout the US. This is unconstitutional, where is the outcry for that.

The new law even goes to enforce these monopolies without creating public options for competition. I prayed for government competition that I could buy into, because I have seen how medicare works and rather enjoy it, at the same time, I would be OK with paying more taxes to get it, as long as I am not paying the close to $700.00 a month that I pay for now through my free market/capitalist/monopolized health care while only making 12.00/hr with an unemployed wife and infant son. It, however was not brought to the table.

Unless we want to fix the whole constitution, I see no point in complaining about just fixing the parts that fit to my ideology.

However, I do like the ideas of a certain brown-skinned, anti-war, socialist, who gave to the needy, provided free food to the hungry, advocated for those who could not advocate for themselves, gave of himself so that others wouldn't suffer, and gave away free healthcare......his name was Jesus.

Done ranting.....

Ummmm......just so I can say I am on topic.....I have no idea whether it is unconstitutional or not. One great thing about this country is that we can have debates like this on a public forum....you guys are the best!

DISLAIMER: Upon reading this I see it sounds a bid cranky.......I am a bit fevered right now and on some hevy duty meds due to bone marrow biopsy today and no offense is intended to any who might be so in this post...so please, these are only my opinions and I know that it is many tangents I will reign myself in better next time

Good and interesting points, Gentlemanly. I'd offer a slight correction on one of your points, however: Your state many mandate that you carry auto insurance but it's not a federal mandate.

Chris L

A well written aritle in the Wall Street Journal helps shed some light on the topic at hand.

The issue is mostly the Federal Government has vastly overstepped its bounds. The Feds are mandating Socialism. It is not socialized medicine, but socialized commerce. The Feds are requiring every person to purchase a product from private companies, under penalty of law.

Review & Outlook: The Constitutional Moment - WSJ.com

Originally Posted by milehiscott

A well written aritle in the Wall Street Journal helps shed some light on the topic at hand.

The issue is mostly the Federal Government has vastly overstepped its bounds. The Feds are mandating Socialism. It is not socialized medicine, but socialized commerce. The Feds are requiring every person to purchase a product from private companies, under penalty of law.

Review & Outlook: The Constitutional Moment - WSJ.com

Dependents do not have to purchase anything, and you can be eligible to opt out with paying a tax. :P

The problem is that if someone chooses not to have health care, and doesn't pay any money towards it (either as a fee or tax), they are then a financial liability to hospitals, government, and taxpayers for when they inevitably need treatment.

Because of the Emergency Medical Treatment Act, virtually every hospital is required to aid people regardless of their citizenship or ability to pay. If that can be mandated then I think it makes sense to tax people who choose not to be covered in order to recoup those costs.

Originally Posted by milehiscott

...The issue is mostly the Federal Government has vastly overstepped its bounds. The Feds are mandating Socialism. It is not socialized medicine, but socialized commerce. The Feds are requiring every person to purchase a product from private companies, under penalty of law...

Spot on! Unconstitutionality is certainly a big issue but your remarks cut right to the core of the issue. They're already telling us what kind of lightbulbs to use, what to eat and not eat, and grossly over regulating tobacco use. Not to mention the seemingly endless excuses for the government to help themselves to ever increasing portions of our hard earned money. Now they're trying to tell me how to spend what I have left of my money? Shennanigans to that, says I.

I don't disagree that health care could use some work but letting the nanny state take the whole thing over is definitely not the answer. I don't know how anyone can support this nonsense. One need only look as far as Welfare, Social Security and Amtrak to see where this one is headed.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

I don't know how anyone can support this nonsense. One need only look as far as Welfare, Social Security and Amtrak to see where this one is headed.

Do you mean, just like them it's headed to stay?

I think it would be nice if people stop repeating 'talking points' they don't understand the meaning of, and instead start thinking what is the society they want to live in.
Because when it's time to make the actual decisions that impact the way of living, the picks seem to be vastly different from all the overheated rhetoric.

A big chunk of the 'founding fathers' most certainly didn't want to live in a society where in order to put food on their table they'd have had to do some cotton picking first. It was much nicer to make a one time investment in a cotton picking slave and then just cover the maintenance.

Similarly the guy who did a bunch of repairs on my house is quite happy to accept that the rest of the society paid for his cancer treatment and continues to pay for his living expenses and medical bills due to his disability, so that he can live more than 50 years. But at the same time he can't stop about how great the proposed republican policies are.

Yes, it's quite possible to have a society where everybody gets only what they (or somebody on their behalf) pay for. I don't think that's the society americans want to live in, at least they say exactly the opposite when you ask only the substance of the questions, and don't include the political jargon.

I personally would be sad to see a large fraction of the people on this forum die because they couldn't afford paying to keep on living.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Spot on! Unconstitutionality is certainly a big issue but your remarks cut right to the core of the issue. They're already telling us what kind of lightbulbs to use, what to eat and not eat, and grossly over regulating tobacco use. Not to mention the seemingly endless excuses for the government to help themselves to ever increasing portions of our hard earned money. Now they're trying to tell me how to spend what I have left of my money? Shennanigans to that, says I.

I don't disagree that health care could use some work but letting the nanny state take the whole thing over is definitely not the answer. I don't know how anyone can support this nonsense. One need only look as far as Welfare, Social Security and Amtrak to see where this one is headed.

I wonder, did you - or your parents - pay *directly* for the education that allowed you to read, write, or comprehend these political issues? The roads you drive on? How many times have you called the police, or fire dept, in your life time, should your taxes really be paying for those - I would suppose that the vast majority pay more in to those systems than they *directly* benefit from them?

It seems to be worryingly easy for people to loose compassion where money (which you can't take with you, as it goes) is involved. I wonder if the compassionate man is richer all along?

Apologies for this post, it is nearly 3am, but you know how it goes on the internet some times.

Originally Posted by gregs656

It seems to be worryingly easy for people to loose compassion where money (which you can't take with you, as it goes) is involved. I wonder if the compassionate man is richer all along?

Right. Not citing anybody on the forum or suggesting it's the entire opposition, but I do find it interesting that there are many Americans who become devoutly religious over trivial topics like gay marriage yet turn around and slam health care reform because "their money" shouldn't go towards helping society as a whole.

Originally Posted by gugi

I think it would be nice if people stop repeating 'talking points' they don't understand the meaning of, and instead start thinking what is the society they want to live in.

Irony, sweet irony, while offering a condescending remark to enforce your own superiority, you paraphrase Robert Kennedy. "There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" You then lean back on the classic liberal talking points that conservatives: 1. Aren't sophisticated enough to understand and 2. Are heartless crumudgeons who would let grandma starve. I will consider myself bested. You Sir, are the victor. What was I thinking?...Oh yeah, "Yee Ha!" Have a pleasant evening