Thread: Constitutionality of Obamacare

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Cool where is mine??????????????
Where do I sign up, to get my Government handouts????

BTW yes I am a little bitter, as some of you know the other day was Sept 15th if you don't know what the date means, I guess you don't understand my problem then...

Left home at 15 years old and been self supporting ever since. For the first few years doing those jobs that Bush said nobody wanted and I was glad to get them. I've never had any of those 'handouts' yet but if I ever became incapacitated I would welcome the opportunity to receive them and I bet you would too. Kind of like a parachute, you may never need it but if you ever do and you don't have it you'll never need it again. I think as a society taking care of our own peoples basic health care needs is no more socialist than public education. A benefit to the society as a whole in the long run.

The constitution allows for quite a bit, even a socialist government, as long as that government does not inhibit the Bill of Rights. The biggest screw up is the Congress allowing a private bank to print, issue and control our money.

Originally Posted by mhailey

Interesting . I've never thought of that provision of the Constitution regaridng this issue. I'll have to look into it.

This clause is sufficiently vague / broad that anyone can use it to justify almost anything. Interesting to say the least.

@Glen, the uniformity mentioed in this clause most likely pertains to equality between states. Meaning that any federal program has to cover all states or none at all.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

The constitution allows for quite a bit, even a socialist government, as long as that government does not inhibit the Bill of Rights. The biggest screw up is the Congress allowing a private bank to print, issue and control our money.

It's neither federal, nor a reserve, nor a bank.
Other than that, the name is dead on.


Sorry for the OT.

I would suspect that Congress/current administration would cite the Interstate Commerce Clause as its authority to regulate health care. These powers are broad (unfortunately for this libertarian) and get applied extensively by the federal government. The US Supreme court expanded the Clause's power, especially during the early-to-mid twentieth century (post-New Deal).

The Rehnquist court (and likely the current Roberts court) began a retrenchment to limit the scope of the ICC.

And as a side note, the U.S. Constitution does not grant any rights, but only expresses powers/restrictions on the federal government. Only individuals are afforded "rights," while only the government gets "powers." Theoretically, if you were to chuck the Constitution out the window, all of your rights (free speech, religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc.) would still exist, only there would be no express limits on the federal government (and chaos would reign).

Originally Posted by Bruno

It's neither federal, nor a reserve, nor a bank.
Other than that, the name is dead on.


Sorry for the OT.

Thank You, its also the reason behind most of our booms and bust cycles, the manipulation of currency through restriction, inflation, etc.

Originally Posted by joscobo

Section 8. The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

I think they could be using the general welfare clause as one means of legal justification under The Constitution.

These words by Thomas Jefferson are possible inspiration:
"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."

Heck, you don't even have to go that far.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure 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.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Left home at 15 years old and been self supporting ever since. For the first few years doing those jobs that Bush said nobody wanted and I was glad to get them. I've never had any of those 'handouts' yet but if I ever became incapacitated I would welcome the opportunity to receive them and I bet you would too. Kind of like a parachute, you may never need it but if you ever do and you don't have it you'll never need it again. I think as a society taking care of our own peoples basic health care needs is no more socialist than public education. A benefit to the society as a whole in the long run.

See Jimmy it is funny that we look at things so differently I started working at 16 and have never stopped... I have never taken a dime of public money...I will collect SSI "If there is any left" but hey I paid for it..
Medi-care and Medicaid yeah I will get those too but hey I paid for it...
What I have a huge problem with is there are to many people being put on the wagon for those of us that work and pay taxes to pull.. I'm sorry but my back is getting sore... I couldn't careless what program gets put into effect just so long as EVERYONE pays for it... This is why I like the idea of a higher sales tax and no income tax that way the more you use the more you pay...and it is totally fair

Originally Posted by gssixgun

This is one time I agree with Jimmy on a political thread

Let's do away with social security, medicare, school lunch programs, pell grants, SSI ...

However I would like to add welfare, school taxes, WIC, hmmm basically anything that does not benefit everybody equally we should do away with...

I tend to agree, but I fear this result:
Lagos la Vida Loca // Current

Let me start off by saying that I am not a citizen of the US. However, I have taken classes in US History, Macro and Micro Econ, and Government.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

See Jimmy it is funny that we look at things so differently I started working at 16 and have never stopped... I have never taken a dime of public money...I will collect SSI "If there is any left" but hey I paid for it..
Medi-care and Medicaid yeah I will get those too but hey I paid for it...
What I have a huge problem with is there are to many people being put on the wagon for those of us that work and pay taxes to pull.. I'm sorry but my back is getting sore... I couldn't careless what program gets put into effect just so long as EVERYONE pays for it... This is why I like the idea of a higher sales tax and no income tax that way the more you use the more you pay...and it is totally fair

Glen I totally agree, but we are paying more through private insurance increases and taxes because of the inefficiency of uninsured people. The point behind insuring everyone is YES we will have to pay for some people and that sucks, BUT it will bring hospital and medical costs down which will bring private insurance and government hospital aid (and thereby taxes) down.

In theory this could work, but economically, as soon as the government imposes a price floor or ceiling of any kind, this leads to market ineffeciencies such as shortage or surplus which both negatively impact the economy. Micro Econ 101 fellahs. Yes, surplus is bad, because it screws the suppliers (who are also citizens) aka tax payers in this case. Its more likely though that a government option will create an artificial price ceiling which results in shortage. The ceiling is created because of economic trends- we see it all the time. Would you rather buy food from Tops for $4 or Wegmans for $2? Thus Tops lowers its prices to be more competitive. Anyway. The resultant shortage translates to an increase in demand (patients) and a decrease in supply (medical staff) which I think is pretty easy to determine will potentially make the system less efficient.

Which brings me to my next point: Economics and Morals are separate issues. 99% of the time, government interference in the free market creates an economic inefficiency that leads to surplus (ie labour or goods not sold, aka unemployment, back stock, etc) or shortage (ie not enough supply of labour or goods). However in certain cases we've decided its better morally to pay more for things through this. Like medicare, medicaid, the minimum wage etc. (min wage- instead of hiring 2 people for $3.50 each, the company can only hire one for $7- decreasing the companies productivity, and leaving one person unemployed so that the other can make more...)

Which brings me to my final point: the social contract.

**** the US Constitution. Its 200+ years old and roughly useless. THE AMMENDMENTS ARE WHERE ITS AT. The Constitution, no, the entire government was meant to CHANGE according to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

And I quote the Declaration of Independence:
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

And so- regardless of what the law IS, we should argue what it SHOULD BE. Because the government serves the people, and should it fail to serve the people, the people have the right to change it. The Constitution allowed for slavery. That was changed. It prohibited women and minorities from voting. That was changed. It doesn't matter if something is Constitutional or not, if a majority of the country agrees that we need something, then we do- thats the whole point of government. That my friends, is

DEMOCRACY.