Thread: Constitutionality of Obamacare

Originally Posted by mhailey

This would also be illegal if I were to run an investment company.

It would also be illegal for an investment company to levy a tax on americans so that they can pay themselves salaries and bonuses. In most states it is illegal for investment companies, or private citizens to run gambling. It is also be illegal for investment companies, or private citizens to purchase nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. You know, there are many things that the government can do that others can't.

Originally Posted by mhailey

Death Panels: here is Daschle (Obama nominated him Secretary of health and human services): elderly that need a heart transplant should look into oral medications or "hospice".

Looks like again you chose to stop exactly at the point of maximum manipulation.

There is no government run plan, so the elderly with a need of a heart transplant gets it or not depending on whether their insurer's death panel approves it. That's exactly the same system that has been in place for years, and not just for the elderly - you probably remember the case of Nataline Sarkisyan.
If you want to argue that it's better for somebody else to decide on your behalf how much medical intervention you would like to be done in order to keep you alive, you could do that. I think most people are fully capable to consider such important questions and it is better to make one choice, or another and change it as many times as they want while they are able to, instead of leaving it to somebody else when they are no longer capable.

Of course, it's all pretty simple, when you need healthcare, you either have the money to pay for it, or you don't. And if you don't the death panel (private, or government appointed, depending on whoever covers you) decides if you're worth the trouble. The only wrong thing really is when you don't have the money to pay, you haven't bought any coverage, yet somebody else still has to pay for you (or at least pay the death panel to decide to leave you alone).
It's not clear though, whether this is just as wrong as trying to exploit something such common sense for political purpose.

Originally Posted by commiecat

It's hilarious that you're both glossing over the parts about Ponzi schemes being fraudulent, which social security is not. It explains exactly what you're doing and what you get, and those things happen. They are also schemes which guarantee returns which, again, never come to fruition. Social security has been paid out to individuals as promised for the last 75 years, and was absolutely necessary when it was originally brought to the table. When people do start outliving the available funds, there will be an exit strategy. By your wack definitions, insurance is probably also a Ponzi scheme, right?

I've yet to see any opposition explain why our health care system before reform was so great, or offer any viable alternatives. It's fun to just point out things you dislike without offering any helpful solutions, isn't it?

Ahh, so you don't respond to "no it isn't" as an answer, yet offer a similar cop-out. There is quantitative evidence that of developed countries, the U.S. is far behind in health care. We pay more and receive less. I wonder if you'd be so dismissive of this conversation if our military was just mediocre by the world's average.

Here are just a few countries off the top of my head: Australia, Canada, Germany, France, Japan, Sweden, UK, Norway. All pay less for insurance, have higher life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rates.

Are any of those specific enough for you to address?

(insert here the deleted portion of my response to your post, as your entire post is off topic)

In the end none of your post imparts any knowledge on whether or not Obamacare is constitutional.

Originally Posted by gregs656

Your first point is insulting, do you not think that teachers at what ever level take their profession very, very, seriously? They are taught not to impart their personal opinions, and they are also told what to teach. To me, what you're saying is akin to blaming front line troops for a tactical error, when they were getting orders from way up. It doesn't make sense.

Your second point, well, who fed you until you left home? Who paid for your education? Human beings are social creatures, perhaps if we focused a little less on 'I' and a little more on 'We' the whole lot of us would be a little less keen to screw each other - but this is a lesson that people have been trying to teach for many thousands of years, and what the hell did they know? In science, it's called game theory - and it is extremely interesting.

Actually what you referenced was a quote from Prof. Williams' article. Perhaps I didn't indicate that correctly. Nevertheless, here in the good old USA students are leaving school functionally illiterate, but full of self-esteem. They have no idea about the function of our government, but they have all the free condoms that they need. Thank God there are exceptions, but the vast majority are not able to think for themselves. I fail to see how stating the truth is an insult to anyone.

The second point that Prof. Williams was making was about the overreach of government into our lives. His point is illustrated by a cartoon.

Originally Posted by mhailey

(insert here the deleted portion of my response to your post, as your entire post is off topic)

In the end none of your post imparts any knowledge on whether or not Obamacare is constitutional.

Riiiight. Okay, yes, the health care reform act is constitutional. Now you can stop bumping this thread whenever Fox News reports some nonsense.

This is fun

Originally Posted by WJF

How will that work when a government bureaucrat is added to the mix? More will die waiting for a "decision".

This assertion is entirely based on the assumption that the government is more inefficient than a private entity. And there are examples both 'for' and 'against it'.

Originally Posted by WJF

Containing 2400+ pages there is so much hidden in the health care legislation that few know about. New taxes, regulations and much more. Some could be considered "job killing".

And by the exact same logic some could be considered 'job creating'. Now I have no problem whatsoever with job killing, and I doubt that you do either. However you will have to go into actual details and demonstrate that those killed jobs are useful, or that the created ones are wasteful.

Originally Posted by WJF

Their success in that arena might explain why educators have been unable to get our youngsters to read, write and compute on a level comparable with other developed nations; they are too busy proselytizing students.

Well, if this were true, how come China with such a heavy propaganda built-into their educational system is way ahead of USA?

Originally Posted by WJF

\ I fail to see how stating the truth is an insult to anyone.

The second point that Prof. Williams was making was about the overreach of government into our lives. His point is illustrated by a cartoon.

Because the blame was wrongly placed.

The second point is poorly defended. Again, how far in life would you have got with out the support, fiscally and otherwise, of society?

Humans are social creatures, and perceived power and perceived wealth corrupts us, and we forget that if someone hadn't reached out and helped us when we had nothing to give to the world, we would be dead already.

Originally Posted by commiecat

Riiiight. Okay, yes, the health care reform act is constitutional.

What makes it constitutional? You have not given any reason except that you think it is because of the general welfare clause in the preamble of the constitution.

A preamble is an introductory and explanatory statement in a document that explains the document's purpose and underlying philosophy. When applied to the opening paragraphs of a statute, it may recite historical facts pertinent to the subject of the statute. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble

It is only basically a mission statement of what the following document is going to acheive. The meat of the federal governments powers are listed in the enumerated powers which are:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [Altered by Amendment XVI "Income tax".]
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
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.

I dont see healthcare, social security, medicare, medicade, DOT, DOE, education, scientific grants, or many many other government programs listed. Therefore, according to the tenth ammendment:

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.

the only governments that can do those things are state and local. What good is a constituion that can be expanded to cover anything the three branches want? It is meant to be a check on those institutions. Of course if you and a large enough majority agree in adding amendments to cover your pet projects, go for it, until then lets hold the government to their sworn duty:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Which is: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

There you go, reasons why Obamacare is unconstituitional. If you want to discuss ways to fix the 'heathcare problem' start another thread, but saying that there is a problem and therefore obama and congress were right to do what they did, does not make obamacare constitutional, nor does it negate the argument to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

What makes it constitutional? You have not given any reason except that you think it is because of the general welfare clause in the preamble of the constitution.

Well the most important thing is that it went through all the appropriate channels and received a passing amount of votes. The Constitution defines (and Schoolhouse Rock! explained) how a bill becomes a law, which is exactly what happened.

In addition:

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Insurance is commerce.

Now when you're dealing with people who do not purchase health care and are not penalized, it affects everyone else which is why it is mandated. The only alternative would be a provision -- which would never get passed -- stating that a person is not to receive treatment unless they have insurance or can afford the expenses out-of-pocket up front.

Originally Posted by commiecat

The only alternative would be a provision -- which would never get passed -- stating that a person is not to receive treatment unless they have insurance or can afford the expenses out-of-pocket up front.

You've just solved the healthcare problem! Congrats!

commiecat;734124]Well the most important thing is that it went through all the appropriate channels and received a passing amount of votes. The Constitution defines (and Schoolhouse Rock! explained) how a bill becomes a law, which is exactly what happened.

So anything the president allows congress to pass, is constitutional? What is the purpose of the supreme court and their job of weighing legislation against the constitution? Its kind of funny you using the video we watch in like 3rd grade to make your decision about constitutionality.

In addition:


Insurance is commerce.

You missed the part, even though you bolded it, among the states. Insurance is within the states.

Now when you're dealing with people who do not purchase health care and are not penalized, it affects everyone else which is why it is mandated. The only alternative would be a provision -- which would never get passed -- stating that a person is not to receive treatment unless they have insurance or can afford the expenses out-of-pocket up front.

What about the people who dont use insurance, because they dont need it? I dont see any difference between those with insurance paying extra for those who get services without having the ability to pay, and everyone paying more for those who dont have the ability to pay. There are other options in regards to your provision as well, like charitable organizations, state and local governments, friends and family, and even charitable care by the hospitals and doctors. Imo, the main reason healthcare is so expensive is because of the insurance companies, now you want to force everyone to have to buy health insurance, there is no way this will bring down healthcare costs, except for the few who couldnt qualify because of pre-existing conditions. Every one else will be paying more.

So far it is mandated for everyone except all these people, 729 buisnesses and unions and 4 states: Helping Americans Keep the Coverage They Have and Promoting Transparency | HHS.gov

Some of these were the biggest supporters of the bill, now that its passed they get waivers to get out from underneath it.