Thread: Constitutionality of Obamacare

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

So everyone brings the last 10 years tax returns to the polls with them, where an IRS CPA does an audit prior to being allowed into the voting booth?

Not really, as all Government handouts are given through your SS# so this really wouldn't be that difficult to monitor in general...

Basically what I am saying is anyone who is living off of the working class will continue to vote for whoever says they will keep the freebies coming... How is that fair, equal, or moral...

Glen you can't technically do this as it is a form of "poll tax" which is illegal because you can't use someone's financial circumstances to prevent them from voting.

But I'm all for it lol. I agree.

Edit:
Taxation without representation- you don't get taxed, you don't get represented. On the flip side, I as a LEGAL HARD WORKING immigrant am getting taxed at the same rates as you guys, but have NO say in it at all. Now THAT is BS. My working dollars are paying someone to sit on their porch bummin' it up. I'd be fine with that, if I could vote on it.

Edit again:
I'm fine with welfare and what not- if someone is working but can't make ends meet, or is actively trying to become employed. Its the people who scam the system that I don't like. Those loop-holers and tax evaders.

I know I know I keep getting hung up on the $$$$ part of this, sorry it is at the top of my list right now so I will shutup for awhile and let others talk

There has been a lot of talk about the Constitution since Obama came to office. Now about Universal Health Care? In my opinion, a constitution that allows the government the right to send young men and women overseas to their potential deaths in foreign lands, but does not allow Universal Domestic Health care, needs a serious priority adjustment.

James.

One thing i'm a bit confused on with the national healthcare...

If it is passed. This means that medicare and similiar programs are null and void right?

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

One thing i'm a bit confused on with the national healthcare...

If it is passed. This means that medicare and similiar programs are null and void right?

I don't think so. If it passes as it evolves I suppose in years to come it could replace those programs if they became redundant as a result of the new NHS.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I don't think so. If it passes as it evolves I suppose in years to come it could replace those programs if they became redundant as a result of the new NHS.

So basically... Those programs will never go away. So universal health care is not quite universal?

This may be a bit off topic at this point (and I may have missed it in the earlier thread) but the answer to the original question about national health care would most likely be yes.

Article 1. Section 8. "The commerce clause" allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has ruled, pretty much since the founding of this country, that the Commerce Clause grants wide authority to Congress to regulate economic activity. Given the vast power that resides in the Commerce Clause a national health care system (even a European style single-payer system) would most likely be constitutional.

If you want the real interesting constitutional question: Will tort reform (which looks to have a good chance of passing with national health care) be constitutional?

The 7th Amendment to the Constitution grants the right of a jury trial for civil matters (i.e. malpractice suits). Most of the bills replace the initial access point to the judicial system with a vast array of binding arbitration "courts". But at the end of the day a person will still be able to get a trial in front of a jury. Even Texas (and I can't think of State that was more open to tort reform than Texas) was only able to get punitive caps (capped at $200,000) to survive constitutional muster. The rest died in the courts or never made it out of the legislature.

Just a thought.

Adrian.

Originally Posted by honedright

Note the different wording - provide for common defense, promote the general welfare.

Different wording, different meanings. The writers were very specific.

Also - "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

The statement directly above is incompatible with a national health care system. Unless you, or anyone, somehow believes that putting a gun to our heads and forcing participation in, and forcing funding for, the system, especially for citizens who neither need or want national health care, is somehow, in some perverted way, a "blessing of liberty."

We've gone back and forth on this. I still don't understand how or why some people are associating an affordable health care option with forced participation or complete governmental control. It's a competitive option just like the USPS is to FedEx and UPS.

YOU WILL BE ABLE TO KEEP YOUR PRIVATE INSURANCE.

I can easily call the right to affordable health care both a liberty and a necessity for posterity.

You know what? It's going to be vote on, and eventually it will pass. I suggest you bookmark that link you posted about cheap flights to Europe because we will have a national heath care option.

Originally Posted by stygian

This may be a bit off topic at this point (and I may have missed it in the earlier thread) but the answer to the original question about national health care would most likely be yes.

Article 1. Section 8. "The commerce clause" allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has ruled, pretty much since the founding of this country, that the Commerce Clause grants wide authority to Congress to regulate economic activity. Given the vast power that resides in the Commerce Clause a national health care system (even a European style single-payer system) would most likely be constitutional.

If you want the real interesting constitutional question: Will tort reform (which looks to have a good chance of passing with national health care) be constitutional?

The 7th Amendment to the Constitution grants the right of a jury trial for civil matters (i.e. malpractice suits). Most of the bills replace the initial access point to the judicial system with a vast array of binding arbitration "courts". But at the end of the day a person will still be able to get a trial in front of a jury. Even Texas (and I can't think of State that was more open to tort reform than Texas) was only able to get punitive caps (capped at $200,000) to survive constitutional muster. The rest died in the courts or never made it out of the legislature.

Just a thought.

Adrian.

Regarding the commerce clause, please see my earlier post. Also, there is no interstate commerce in health insurance. It is illegal to cross state lines to get health insurance. It is purely state controlled (not federally controlled). Further, the nationalization of health care is not regulation, it is nationalization. We might as well look to Hugo Chavez for advice on this.

Off topic: As for the constitutionality of Tort REform, it is clearly constitutional, as it pertains to Federal claims. The right to a jury trial is "preserved" in teh constitution. Therefore, if there was a cause of action, when the Constitution was created, then that right is preserved. however, for claims arising where there was no original right to a jury trial, there is no constitutional right to a jury trial now. (See discrimination claims. these were unheard of when the constitution was written, and so there is no Constitutional right to a jury trial now. the statute can provide for a jury trial, but not the constitution).

As for legilative reform dying in the legilature, you can thank the ATLA (American Trial Lawyers Association) for that. they are so in bed with the Democrates that they will have to be surgically removed.

END OFF TOPIC

and on with the show