Just one of the reasons

[layoutshooter]

Below is just one of the reasons that any health care bill that comes out of this congress and administration will be unconstitutional. I defy anyone in here, the congress or Obama himself to show my anywhere in the Constitution of the United Sates of American that it gives the Federal government the authority to mandate that an individual citizen has to purchase any product for any reason!!

How can anyone still believe that this is a "health care reform bill"? It is total and illegal take over of the American People by an out of control Government.

They must be stopped. The two bills that are out there are vile. Bills such as these have no place in a free country!!!








Required coverage (the "individual mandate"). American citizens and legal residents would be required to have health insurance, or pay a fine. For an individual, the fine would be $750 per year or 2 percent of household income, whichever is greater; for a family, the maximum fine would be $2,250 per year or 2 percent of household income. The fines would go into effect gradually, starting in 2014. The House bill is similar, with exemptions for certain low-income people.

 

[jaminjim]

Below is just one of the reasons that any health care bill that comes out of this congress and administration will be unconstitutional. I defy anyone in here, the congress or Obama himself to show my anywhere in the Constitution of the United Sates of American that it gives the Federal government the authority to mandate that an individual citizen has to purchase any product for any reason!!

How can anyone still believe that this is a "health care reform bill"? It is total and illegal take over of the American People by an out of control Government.

My guess is that somehow they are going to get by with claiming it is in the 'best' interest of the countries defense.

 

[layoutshooter]

That is what my left wing wacko son says. These bums have to go!!! This is nothing more than another step to living under a dictator.

 

[Turtle]

In the "best interest" of whatever they wish to claim, doesn't change the fact that if this bill becomes law, the government will, for the first time ever, have the power to require the purchase of goods or services as a requirement for lawful residence in the United States.

Every public opinion poll, even those slanted towards the Democrats, all show the American people are overwhelmingly against this bill. If it passes, it won't last long before it's either repealed by another Congress, or overturned by the Supreme Court.

They can try and massage it into the Commerce Clause whereby Congress has the power to regulate Interstate Commerce, but that fact alone doesn't give Congress the power to mandate that US citizens participate in Interstate Commerce in any way. An individual can choose whether or not to buy goods and services that come from out-of-state, but this bill removes that choice, on the auspices that the medicines and medical equipment used for treatment will likely come from another state or country, and that if people get medical treatment they cannot avoid participating in Interstate Commerce. Therefore, it's OK to mandate that they do. What a load of crap.

 

[jaminjim]

Supposedly there are seven states wanting to challenge the bill, because of the deal making. If it was/is against the Constitution the Republicans would have already brought that up. There must be some loophole that they know it can be slipped in.

 

[jaminjim]

I forget my Civics lessons, what is the process to repeal a piece of **** I mean a piece of legislation?

 

[layoutshooter]

Several ReBumLiCans have brought up the Constitutional problems with this bill. I expect to see some court challenges if/and or when this monster passes. We can hope that the House and Senate will not be able to come to an agreement.

Turtle is right, they do not have the legal authority to force an individual citizen to purchase anything. I have asked my Senators and Congressman just how much force they intend to use in the policing of this bill. None of them will answer. I even expect to see a Federal health care police force, a sub-set of the IRS to enforce these new fines and taxes. Bet they wear brown shirts as well!!

 

[Turtle]

Supposedly there are seven states wanting to challenge the bill, because of the deal making. If it was/is against the Constitution the Republicans would have already brought that up. There must be some loophole that they know it can be slipped in.

There are two loopholes, well, three, really, that Dems are clinging to, the Interstate Commerce thing, the Taking Clause, and the tax laws.

The Interstate Commerce Clause (under Raich, Lopez and US v. Morris) gives Congress the power to regulate anything that has a "substantial effect" on Interstate Commerce. They will argue (and are arguing) that since for the vast majority of people the medicines and medical equipment used in treatment will be Interstate in nature, that in requiring folks to buy health insurance, it requires a commercial exchange. The whole argument for an individual mandate is to get health care consumers to internalize their costs, and not spread them to the larger interstate economy, which therefore has a "substantial effect" on Interstate Commerce, and is thereby under the power of Congress to mandate. The opposition, me included, argue that the mandate is not even commercial in nature, much less Interstate Commerce, as the mandate gets triggered simply by being an American.

On the Taking Clause, forcing you to buy something you do not want and will not use violates the law preventing the government from the taking of property without just compensation. Supports of the mandate return that the classic “taking” applies to an individual, while the mandate would apply to everyone, and so this could be seen more like a tax than a taking. In addition, they counter with the fact that as a result of the mandate you will have an insurance policy of equal or greater value than you paid in, and since you get value for your money it is a commercial exchange. To that I say, "So what? Whether I get equal value or not is irrelevant if I don't want to buy it in the first place." Now they're making the case to require Americans to engage in a commercial exchange. What's the next step on the slippery slope for that one? Life insurance? Global Warming insurance? You can only buy cars manufactured by Government Motors? Where does it end?

Senator Baucus calls the penalty fine an excise tax (a tax levied on goods, usually reserved for luxury items like luxury cars, yachts, fur coats, and of course tires), to be administered and collected by the IRS. Supporters say that's OK, since Congress can adopt an excise tax to an end that is within its other constitutional powers, therefore it's fine and dandy. Never mind the fact that it really and truly doesn't fit in with its other constitutional powers - it's still a mandate to buy something you don't want. They point to US v. Kahriger, where the US Supreme Court upheld the federal tax on gambling under Congress' taxing power, as interpreting the Taxing Power ruling quite broadly, where it all but eliminates any distinction between a "penalty" and revenue-producing "tax." The fact that Kahringer would not have been taxed if he didn't gamble is of no concern to these people, they say it simply defined more broadly what Congress can tax, and since the tax will be levied on a percentage of income, except for the poorest of people, it's OK.

 

[Oilerman1957]

I dont know, but arent you already required to buy medicare and social security?

 

[layoutshooter]

Those are pure taxes, not, a product. They, should however, not be in place as they should have been declared unconstitutional as well. They are also perfect examples of why we should never have government controlled health care. Both of those programs are bankrupt and fraud ridden. The Social Security trust fund has been gutted that there is nothing left. It is no different than a Ponsi scheme. We have been putting people in prison for doing what our government has done with the surpluses that S.S. ran for the first 60-70 years ago.

 

[Oilerman1957]

Like company run pension funds are solvent, or the health care they promised to pay existing or retried employees? So its just not gov run programs. and yes SS and Medicare are a product you are buying just as a gov sponsored health care program is. One thing i will say is this>>> Who would i trust most, Gov or Big Business? I'd go with the Gov. At least i get to vote, I have no say-so with Big Business

 

[layoutshooter]

So, you believe that the use of force the loss of freedom is worth that? You have more of a choice with private business, you can change companies. Government has proven to be far worse than business in this country and anywhere in the world when they try to do things that they are not capable of. You will find out, and quickly it this monster passes, that your health care costs will sky rocket, your access to care will become more difficult and the quality of care will go down.

The idea that we, as a people are either too lazy, too stupid or unwilling to assume responsibility for our own lives is destroying the very fabric of this Nation. Our ideals of self-reliance and our can do spirit have served us well. Becoming a "ward of the State" will just make us pets to be controlled a cared for.

Do you really believe that the government has the legal authority to use force to impose this on us? If so, is that good? Is low end health care worth the loss of freedom? Are you willing to jail those who cherish their freedom and refuse to be ruled? Is there any chance that the government will abuse this new stolen power and use it to circumvent the Constitution on other issues under the guise of controlling health care costs? How much government control of your life are you will to accept? In other words, is freedom or security more important?

I choose to remain free. I will never give in to this horror. I have been able to care for my family and my self for my entire adult life. I did that by hard work and sacrifice!! I used to watch those who had free health care go to pro sports games, have nicer homes and cars etc. I had to spend that extra money to provide for the needs of my family. I held to the proper priorities that a man accepts when he takes on the responsibility of a family. So can everyone else. I was not lucky, special or gifted, I just did it and did it on my own, thank you very much.

I owe no one else their health care, that is their responsibility. Charity is a gift freely given. It is no longer charity someone uses force to make you "give" that "charity" to others.

Robin Hood was just another "thief". So is our government. They rob from those who perform and give it to the bums.

This performer says no more.

A man does no ask for or accept charity unless there is no other option left. When a man does accept help he does so with the shame of his failure and strives to get back on his own as soon as possible. A man would rather die than be kept.

 

[greg334]

The Interstate Commerce Clause (under Raich, Lopez and US v. Morris) gives Congress the power to regulate anything that has a "substantial effect" on Interstate Commerce. They will argue (and are arguing) that since for the vast majority of people the medicines and medical equipment used in treatment will be Interstate in nature, that in requiring folks to buy health insurance, it requires a commercial exchange. The whole argument for an individual mandate is to get health care consumers to internalize their costs, and not spread them to the larger interstate economy, which therefore has a "substantial effect" on Interstate Commerce, and is thereby under the power of Congress to mandate. The opposition, me included, argue that the mandate is not even commercial in nature, much less Interstate Commerce, as the mandate gets triggered simply by being an American.

The three cases you cited seem to limit the congressional powers under the IC clause not really expand it Which I know you are saying.

Gonzales v. Raich – was over congress's ability to limit the states rights on the subject of medical cannabis use. The liberal part of the court held the majority that congress can indeed circumvent any laws that the states pass. The case was not just about the commerce clause, it was a small part of it.

US v. Lopez was about a gun and violence which the US argued that “the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to a violent crime, which in turn would affect the general economic condition” and the regulation of such comes under the IC Clause. The court didn't but the argument, saying that the “Possession of a gun near school is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. A law prohibiting guns near schools is a criminal statute that does not relate to commerce or any sort of economic activity.”

US v. Morris was not about the IC clause but was about congress's ability to pass a law allowing a victim to sue their attackers on the federal level. The US used the argument that they had the power to pass such a law based on the IC clause but the court didn't agree and struck down the portions of the Violence Against Women Act. The court referred to and came to the decision based on US v. Lopez case.

These cases and a few others actually have defined what congress can do under the guise of the IC clause. It does not hand them unlimited powers which was not done until Wickard v. Filburn (1942) which there was a farmer who had produced wheat to feed his family, the US government under the Agricultural Adjustment Act said he is not allowed to produce wheat outside of his quota but more importantly the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation which handed congress the power to regulate labor through the IC clause which has been revisited a couple times since.

With the US v. Lopez case, I feel that they may have a hard time justifying the regulation of insurance at the federal level and the court may not agree that mandating the insurance to any citizen base on interstate commerce is constitutional – especially with the court we have today.

I'd go with the Gov. At least i get to vote, I have no say-so with Big Business

Oilman actually you have more say with big business and furthermore government has no options but to limit your ability to choose. What chose do you have with Medicare?

As for pensions, i think that the tax payer should not ever pay to bail out a pension program, we have Social Security for the retiree.

 

[aristotle]

We are watching the free market be usurped by socialism. Socialized medicine is America's Christmas gift from Barack Obama and the Democrat Party. If truth-in-advertising means anything, shouldn't the Democrats change their name to the Socialist Party?

I wonder how many Americans know or care to know what Socialism really is? Socialism is an admission of defeat for any society. Are we to become like the surrender monkeys of France? Socialism is an insidious corruption that kills personal initiative, kills ambition, kills personal responsibility... all in the false belief that the larger collective good is being served.

Socialism is about equalization. Equal access and equal outcomes. We can all be equally poor, together. Individuality and innovation must be squelched. Let the State be exalted above all things and all persons. The State is everything. The individual is nothing but an automaton in service to the State.

With Obama's first year in office, we have seen the federal government takeover banks, automobile companies and very soon... the healthcare industry. Wonder what Year 2, Year 3, and Year 4 will bring?

Socialism is Communism's prettier sister: yet, they both be hags. We freedom loving people need to draw an line in the sand right now. Else, the boot of a dictator will be upon our throats.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

yeah and the GOP is just playing word games because they want HC reform as well only their version....as Joe would say...throw ALL the bums out..

 

[aristotle]

yeah and the GOP is just playing word games because they want HC reform as well only their version....as Joe would say...throw ALL the bums out..

Conservatives primarily seek tort reform, deregulation amd the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines. Can you find a problem with those ideas?

 

[layoutshooter]

The only people that could trust government with their health care would be people that have never read history. The world's governments were directly responsible for the deaths of nearly 100 million people last century.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Conservatives primarily seek tort reform, deregulation amd the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines. Can you find a problem with those ideas?

Nope....and do they advocate NON forced participation?

 

[aristotle]

Nope....and do they advocate NON forced participation?

Conservatives do not require forced participation. Just about every government program foisted upon the American people has come from the Left. Mandatory participation and its accompanying taxation are born from the same Socialist mother.

 

[greg334]

Conservatives primarily seek tort reform, deregulation amd the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines. Can you find a problem with those ideas?

Nope....and do they advocate NON forced participation?

Yep by their actions - tort reform, deregulation and the individual's ability to purchase health insurance across state lines.

Does it matter if they participate or not?