Thread: Constitutionality of Obamacare

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

I got the tab.
I for one do not mind sending my tax dollars off to a government that spends it in a way that I see as appropriate. It so happens that the current administration is more likely to spend that money for what I consider the proper causes. Helping the downtrodden, improving the condition of the most in need, all that stuff.
Would I prefer a world in which everyone gave as much as they could to help others? OH YEAH! Private institutions raising money from the willing in order to end hunger and provide healthcare? Wouldn't that be grand! But we wouldn't. If the government doesn't fix healtcare, people will continue to die or suffer because the current system is broken. The "market" will not fix this.

The market will fix it and has everywhere it has been allowed to work. One thing we have to remember when we talk about the government and health care is that it has already interfered in the system to the point that it might as well be considered an arm of government already.

The single largest insurer in the US is the federal government through medicare/medicaid. They set the price they are willing to pay with no input from the doctors. This forces the doctors to charge more to other payers, to stay solvent. This screws the market royally.

If we look at areas of medicine that are not included in the government insurance out there you will find that they have been getting steadily cheaper even as the cost of everything else rises. Cosmetic surgery for instance. Also eye care, not being covered is much cheaper than it was just a decade ago.

This is exactly why the constitution and the founders advocated a hands off approach and limited powers for the government. They knew that anytime Uncle Sam wanted to stir the soup he would screw it up and make things worse. Under our current constitution there is no way our government should be even as socialized as it is. I strongly advocate a house cleaning starting at the top and going through every single department as needed with whatever means is necessary to take this county back from the criminals currently running it whether they be elected officials or long time bureaucrats.

Put simply, your life dos not give you the right to take my liberty and happiness. They are equal.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Monopolies? Of course not. They are the antithesis of competition. Pure capitalism is just as evil as pure communism. Capitalism needs market regulation and overview in order to stay honest and not shaft the consumers.

Yes Bruno, it IS the role of government to protect us. In fact, that is the primary role of government.

But the government is supposed to protect us with both hands. Not just protect with one hand while the other is pick-pocketing us. Because then the government is just as evil as those you reprimand above.

Originally Posted by honedright

How is any industry, that depends on earned profits to survive, supposed to compete with a government that obtains it's operating expenses by robbing (not earning) from others, and then doesn't care if it makes a profit or not?

Isn't this just the type of dishonest business practice that you say it is the role of government to regulate and protect us (the consumer) from?

More over, how is a business to compete with a government who has no regard for financial solvency? Okay sure... it has to pay off in 10 years. But lets look at CARS or Cash for Clunkers. The firs BILLION ran out so they instantly approved another 2 BILLION. Where's the financial solvency in that?

The US government is NOTORIOUS for impulse spending and just writing it off to defecit. And it becomes cyclical. The reason we were in the great depression was from uncontrolled lending/spending on credit. So FDR introduced (if you calculate inflation) the biggest increase in national debt EVER. Its though today that even if he hadn't spent it, there's a good chance the economy would have recovered anyway due to the war. Then, we boomed again and people went right back to speculation. And here we are again. And people are still speculating- as housing hits a low, rich people are gobbling it up. And the Stimulous Package basically mortgaged away my generations chances at well being.

As it stands, China own most of our country. Look up the chinese-US exchange rate. It doesn't fluctuate. Why? Because China buys US debt off of us in the form of Bonds. If they stopped buying those bond, the exchange rate would flip HEAVILY in favour of China, and made in China would cease to be cheap. And if China ever decided to collect, we are ****ed.

I've been watching this thread and this topic came up recently in the Wall Street Journal. This was written by 2 attorneys who served in the Department of Justice, David B Rivkin Jr. and Lee A Casey titled "Mandatory Insurance is Unconstitutional".


Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a "tax" that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by "taxing" anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables.

This type of congressional trickery is bad for our democracy and has implications far beyond the health-care debate. The Constitution's Framers divided power between the federal government and states—just as they did among the three federal branches of government—for a reason. They viewed these structural limitations on governmental power as the most reliable means of protecting individual liberty—more important even than the Bill of Rights.

Yet if that imperative is insufficient to prompt reconsideration of the mandate (and the approach to reform it supports), then the inevitable judicial challenges should. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate "regulatory" taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress's constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress's power to regulate individual Americans. The Supreme Court has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care.

The original question is, with all due respect, silly.
Do you really think both parties would have spent all this time and energy on trying to come up with health care legislation if there was a bona fide legal/constitutional impediment that would potentially nullify the entire endeavor? Come on. If this was even a remote possibility, don't you think those who are strongly opposed to the entire concept wouldn't have raised this as an objection by now? The fact is, there is nothing constitutionally proscribed in terms of the various healthcare proposals under discussion. Just like there's no constitutional problem with the social security system; the tax system, etc. As one of the earlier posters accurately noted, the US Supreme Court long ago decided on a very broad interpretation of the commerce clause. To follow a much narrower view, one that would proscribe the type of healthcare legislation being considered, would result in undermining scads of long-established laws, institutions and programs already in place. Ain't gonna happen...

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

the US Supreme Court long ago decided

well, some of us see it differently - hence the silly discussion

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

The original question is, with all due respect, silly.

I agree that it is silly because as I have said- one law doesn't have to follow an old law if the new one is better- we (or should I say you rather I'm not an American) as civilians are allowed to change any and all laws if a majority wants to. Hence the amendments.

This discussion however, is not silly, because the intellectual discourse provides a medium for these thoughts to evolve and change. Debate allows people to see adn consider multiple view points, then decide which they like best. Thus, we can debate whether or not it is constitutional, which is silly, but debating whether or not it is necessary is not, because the Constitution can be amended.

It is silly to say that it was decided a long time ago- may I remind everyone that the Constitution ALLOWED for slavery, it had to be amended. It prohibited everyone but white males from voting, it had to be amended. It allowed drinking, was amended, and later that was decided to be bad so it was re-amended.

I am not in favour of the "living document" theory, where the Constitution is loose, it is not, it is precise and law. BUT- there are vectors of change that can and should be used. Otherwise we would still have slavery- as banning slavery would be unconstitutional, women still couldn't vote because it would be unconstitutional, and we wouldn't have any of our amendment rights, because they would be unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by honedright

How is any industry, that depends on earned profits to survive, supposed to compete with a government that obtains it's operating expenses by robbing (not earning) from others, and then doesn't care if it makes a profit or not?

Isn't this just the type of dishonest business practice that you say it is the role of government to regulate and protect us (the consumer) from?

Government provision only covers care that is medically justified.
For example, dental work in Belgium is pretty much free when it comes to cavities, root canal, etc. You can't really elect not to have them, and treating those things early saves a lot of costs later on.
Orthodonty (making sure your teeth are aligned properly etc) is not covered.

Private insurers make their money in the non-covered market, like aesthetic orthodonty, luxury treatments (single vs double room), lasic eye treatment, expensive prosthetics, etc.

Private and public operate in separate areas.

Originally Posted by Bruno

For example, dental work in Belgium is pretty much free when it comes to cavities, root canal, etc. You can't really elect not to have them

Pretty much free...what does that mean? The Dentist gets paid, yes? In my experience, only children think that things are free. Adults understand that someone, somewhere, has to pay the bill.

And, you are saying that in Belgium one cannot refuse to have certain dental surgeries? Really? If a Belgian Dentist determines that you need a root canal, or a tooth filling, you are forced to have the procedure? I understand that most people want to have these procedures, but I've known some that either put off the surgery, or actually just neglect to have the work done, their choice. If someone wants to let their teeth rot out of their head, that's their business.

What happens if one of your countrymen refuses to have a "required" dental procedure?

Originally Posted by honedright

What happens if one of your countrymen refuses to have a "required" dental procedure?

The refusing party gets politely punched in the teeth