Constitutional Argument For Health Care Law: Thoughts and Arguments?

[windwalker17]

Hi Everybody,

So i posted on CNN earlier, but so many comments mine just get drowned out lol. So i was wondering what you guys think of my take on the Constitutional Argument for the Affordable Care Act, and what your arguments/counter-arguments are. Lets keep it civil if we can please.

My Take:

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 of the Constitution: Known as the Commerce clause, states: "The federal government shal have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

Thus, technically speaking, any economic entity or any amount of money that crosses state or national lines can be regulated by the federal government on the basis of this law.

Following this Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18 states that: "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"

Thus not only does the Constitution allow for the Federal Government to regulate commerce, it invests the government with the power to execute its own laws across all boundaries.

Now some are going to state that you don't go out of state for healthcare. No offense of course, but i blieve you are wrong.

Healthcare is an economic powerhouse that definitely crosses state lines.

Medical equipment is purchased from other states, and even abroad. Physicians and nurses and hospital staff payed for their education, more often than not, in another state or nation. Drugs are manufactured usually in Canada or Europe and brought in. So YES healthcare does cross state lines and as such can be regulated under the commerce act.

So in conlusion, the way im understanding the commerce clause, unless EVERY SINGLE PIECE of medical equipment is manufactured in your state, until all your physicians and nurses and staff are educated and trained in your state, and until every single drug used in your hospital is developed/packaged and assembled in your state, and until you live in your state from which you are born and never leave it and get healthcare anywhere else.....then it is considered interstate and international commerce, thus under the protection of the commerce clause.

Just my personal interpretation

So thoughts/opinions? Anyone want to post their arguments here too...please feel free id like to see them!

 

[Katzndogz]

Inactivity is not subject to the commerce clause.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, clearly, the Federal government can use the Commerce Clause compel everyone to only eat fish on Fridays too.

 

[Katzndogz]

As was brought up, can the governent require everyone to own a cell phone with a GPS locator.

Supreme Court health care: Justice Roberts: Can the government make you buy a cell phone? - POLITICO.com

 

[Juanita]

FYI---- Medicare is a mandate, a lovely one to be sure, but still a mandate and if you are an older person on social security, the government "takes" over $90 per month to pay for Medicare, so what is the difference??? This was originally a Republican idea...back in the 1990s when the Clintons were trying to pass health care, they wanted an employer mandate, but the republicans came out against that and "for" an individual mandate and they thought this was a wonderful idea, until President Obama took office and agreed with them....suddenly it became a terrible idea and unconstitutional.....what a lot of hooey on the right..........

 

[mascale]

The Justice Kennedy Question is about whether or not the requirement of health insurance through government imposes an unconstitutional obligation, nowhere even recognized in Common Law.

The Adminstration contention is that what is at issue is the payment plan for medical care, and indeed: The entire medical health care system in the United States.

An individual is not under obligation to rescue a blind person from the path of an on-going car. But a non-payer is likely to take a blind payer to a location staffed with health care providers in the event of an accident. The non-payer does not have to pay, but is nevertheless a beneficiary of the entire medical health care system in the instant moment.

So the non-payer is already bound to the health care market, and is in fact: A participant in it.

That is a statement of the Administration contention, if not the direct contention so far, in the presentations. Health Care providers, and facility building contractors and maintainers: Have payment requirements. It is on an interstate basis. Even the non-payer has access to the interstate system. The obligation to payment for it--just knowing that it is there--is already a participation act. So no unwarranted obligation is created. An existing obligation is mostly taken from virtual reality, and made statute.

Humans use currency, and take steps to gain currency. Humans use medical locations and providers, but some take no steps to gain payment capabilities. Statute remedies that. The concept of a government created obligation to gain currency doesn't arise, insofar as I am aware. There is regulation about gaining-currency methods, however.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
("Give 'em. . .The Ax. . .The Ax. . .The Ax! Give 'em. . .the bird. . . . . .seed. . .Now!(?)" Many do understand government, however, at this time! It is often times regarded, the Schvartz Ivy League. . . .If anyone wonders why(?)!)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I hope Thomas writes the majority opinion

 

[frazzledgear]

Hi Everybody,

So i posted on CNN earlier, but so many comments mine just get drowned out lol. So i was wondering what you guys think of my take on the Constitutional Argument for the Affordable Care Act, and what your arguments/counter-arguments are. Lets keep it civil if we can please.

My Take:

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 of the Constitution: Known as the Commerce clause, states: "The federal government shal have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

Thus, technically speaking, any economic entity or any amount of money that crosses state or national lines can be regulated by the federal government on the basis of this law.

Following this Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18 states that: "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"

Thus not only does the Constitution allow for the Federal Government to regulate commerce, it invests the government with the power to execute its own laws across all boundaries.

Now some are going to state that you don't go out of state for healthcare. No offense of course, but i blieve you are wrong.

Healthcare is an economic powerhouse that definitely crosses state lines.

Medical equipment is purchased from other states, and even abroad. Physicians and nurses and hospital staff payed for their education, more often than not, in another state or nation. Drugs are manufactured usually in Canada or Europe and brought in. So YES healthcare does cross state lines and as such can be regulated under the commerce act.

So in conlusion, the way im understanding the commerce clause, unless EVERY SINGLE PIECE of medical equipment is manufactured in your state, until all your physicians and nurses and staff are educated and trained in your state, and until every single drug used in your hospital is developed/packaged and assembled in your state, and until you live in your state from which you are born and never leave it and get healthcare anywhere else.....then it is considered interstate and international commerce, thus under the protection of the commerce clause.

Just my personal interpretation

So thoughts/opinions? Anyone want to post their arguments here too...please feel free id like to see them!

The problem with your argument is the same one Obama's lawyer ran into today and will run into tomorrow too. Obamacare doesn't regulate MEDICAL CARE -it creates another but far more massive and far more expensive government run, government controlled, government regulated HEALTH INSURANCE entitlement program and it is time we understand "medical care" and "insurance" are NOT one and the same thing! Insurance isn't MEDICAL CARE. It is insurance and insurance, whether it is private or government run, NEVER guarantees you will get every or ANY medical procedure and all medical care your little heart desires -and it sure doesn't guarantee it will be quality care either. These are NOT interchangeable terms and provably far more likely to be incompatible.

The commerce clause was inserted to prevent one state from charging a tariff on another state before any goods manufactured in the 2nd state could be sold in the first state. It was to prevent one state from abusing another one -which makes sense if you understand no one state produces all the goods needed by the people of that state and there are people who wouldn't hesitate to try and benefit their own state by gouging another one. So the commerce clause was specifically created to prevent that. NOT to unleash massive, never ending and constantly expanding government powers where it need only call any further power grab just another perversion of the commerce clause! It sure as hell wasn't so government could lay claim to take over and completely restructure the entire economy of the nation. If government has the power to take over an entire industry, then it would allow those of one political party in control of both houses of Congress that happened to love the idea of a big, expensive, power hungry government and got off on exercising massive control of the people to just lay claim to our entire economy, take it over, force a massive restructuring of it from top to bottom -and ram it down our throats on nothing but a simple majority vote. Whether the people of this nation agreed with it or not. You know -kind of like what happened with health care in the first place. Knowing good and well how difficult it is for the people who just got fucked big time to actually get it repealed. Do you really think that is what the commerce clause is for? As the gateway for federal government to turn itself into an authoritarian state? Because like it or not, the justices are supposed to follow the intent of the Constitution, NOT try to figure out how to help the federal government abuse it, expand it, bypass it, get around it, pervert it, bastardize it and pretend the Constitution is a "living document" that means whatever the power hungry need it to mean at any given moment so they can pretend they are staying within the LIMITED powers the founders gave federal government! The Constitution is a dead piece of paper with the words written out on it right there for all to read and it isn't in CODE -and those words ALL have specific definitions. Not constantly changing definitions.

Another problem is the fact since Congress passed a law preventing people from crossing state lines to buy their health insurance and forced them to buy only from insurance companies within the state (another story about that political pay-off with that one by officially granting monopolies to favored companies and guaranteeing a lack of competition with the higher prices that result from that -and screw the people left holding the bag) -the sale of health insurance doesn't even cross state lines. Health insurance is an intrastate commerce -therefore, thanks to Congress itself actually does not fall under the commerce clause anyway. Federal government has no constitutional authority to claim the power to regulate intrastate commerce -only interstate. There again are those words that actually have meaning in spite of the left insisting words mean whatever they NEED them to mean at any given moment -and the difference between intra- and inter- is huge. Obamacare doesn't actually take over MEDICAL CARE (yet) -so the fact someone may cross state lines to receive medical care or some piece of medical equipment is made in another state is irrelevant and doesn't make it magically fall under interstate commerce. This is entirely about INSURANCE. The fine print of the government run expansion of entitlement programs is no different from what any insurance company does by setting up the rules for the providers who choose to participate and those who purchase the insurance. Only by destroying the health insurance industry and leaving the government run entitlement program left standing is it possible for government to also lay claim to the entire medical industry. And proponents having laid the groundwork for it by making it far cheaper and far less hassle for employers to just stop offering health insurance benefits and just pay a token penalty instead. This will leave people with less and less choice for insurance and, since ordered to purchase insurance or else, it leaves us dumb cows to be herded into the last plan standing. Government's and all others withered and died. Where PRESTO, government has suddenly taken over TWO entire industries -insurance AND medical care. Which again, are NOT the same thing. But leaves us all as the government owned property the left has always insisted we really are, nothing but subjects of the ruling elite to be ruled over -not citizens who consent to be governed. And of course with far less power and this nation no longer existing where the bulk of power lies with WE THE PEOPLE as the founders intended - and instead lies with GOVERNMENT. And once that power shifts from the people to government -it is nearly impossible to peacefully get it back. Buyer beware -because once again, INSURANCE isn't MEDICAL CARE. You can have that government owned, government run health insurance -but that NEVER -in ANY country -guarantees you will be granted medical care or even timely access to medical care! You will have a piece of PAPER printed out by government to stick in your wallet -but not necessarily have timely, necessary or quality medical care. Because they are not the same thing!

I heard yet ANOTHER stupid ass person claim the federal government has this power under that part about "providing for the common welfare" clause of the Constitution. Except that isn't what it says and federal government was NOT given any such power to PROVIDE for the common welfare. It is to PROMOTE the common welfare -because government does not GIVE us our common welfare in the first place! The common welfare of any people is created by a people for themselves, not something GIVEN to them by an institution they created in the first place and only exists because they pay for ITS existence and NOT the other way around!

I think Kennedy's question cut to the quick of it when he asked if this legislation didn't permanently and fundamentally change the relationship between our government and the people -that change in relationship also by definition, changes our entire system, our way of life. And puts an end to American exceptionalism (which refers ONLY to the fact Americans' existence is the EXCEPTION to the norm of how man has typically lived throughout our species history as the subjects of government who must do whatever government orders them to do. However, we exist as citizens who CONSENT to be governed and who reserve the right and the power to rescind that consent). That Obama thought "American exceptionalism" meant nothing but "Americans think their country is exceptional" and when asked about American exceptionalism STUPIDLY and IGNORANTLY responded by saying "no doubt the French think their country is pretty exceptional too" only revealed the hard truth that this man not only rejects American values, he doesn't even understand them.

 

[beagle9]

How can the government think that it can force us to buy a private sector product (i.e. as in an insurance plan, found in the current ways that the Insurance companies do now stand and operate), without any garantee's as to whether a product will be sufficient, and also a quality product that will be worth our dollars spent ?

They can't help us on the price of gas, thus everytime we use our dollars on gasoline now, we are getting the big one, where as once we could use $3.00 dollars to purchase 3.gal of gas, and now $3.00 dollars only buy's 1.5 gal of gas, thus causing $3.00 dollars to now only be worth $1.50 when we put our money up against that kind of pricing going on at the pump's, and this is just why we are also in a pickel when it comes to our insurance rates as well. The figures above are just some examples, but are not accurate to the situation at hand, because the situation at hand is even worse than that which is listed above.

The only thing that I think the government should do, is to look hard for us, when it comes to gouging and overcharging by insurance companies, oil companies and etc. for we the US citizen, and then maybe levy fines against the insurance companies or oil companies for over charging we the people of the United States of America, if found to be the case, where fore they were giving us a product that wasn't worth what we were then paying for it or what they were charging for it.

Example: My friend is paying $150.00 dollars a week through his employer now for him and his wifes health care plan, and with a ($5,000 dollar deductible for the both of them seperately), where as in the words of his own doctor, he said that it was all just highway robbery, otherwise for what my friend is currently being charged, so this doctor is now trying to work out some areas of his bill, so that he won't have to pay so much because he used this insurance that is so bad and expensive.

My friend before hand, got a $950.00 dollar bill after he had went and had a physical done at 51 years old (passed with flying colors), even though he pays $150.00 dollars a week for this insurance (United Health Care), he still got a $950 dollar bill to boot afterwards.

Another friend said he got a $500.00 bill in the mail the other day from his doctor, aside from what his insurance would pay, and he only went for a check up. He also has this (United Health Care).

Unless Obama can control the outcome for us, as to be found within the quality of these products and services in which we need, and to make sure that it is worth the dollars in which we spend for these plans/products, it will not be for the good and/or the betterment of this nation and it's people by what he is attempting to do at the supreme court level right now, and thus should be shot down (i.e. this individual mandate, in which forces people to buy a plan), thus from the private health care insurance industry (or) be fined by the government if they refuse to buy something that isn't worth their money invested in such a plan ???

Kidding me right ? The single payer health care plan for all, would have been the answer maybe for us all, but not what Obama is asking for right now... I don't think the whole bill needs to be shot down, but that we should keep what is good in it, or get some garantee's somehow that another one will take it's place that will also address the problems we were all having prior too, and still are having currently, in which had brought about all this thinking in which created this monster to begin with..

 

[starcraftzzz]

As was brought up, can the governent require everyone to own a cell phone with a GPS locator.

Supreme Court health care: Justice Roberts: Can the government make you buy a cell phone? - POLITICO.com

The mandate does not require everyone to have health insurance, it simply make sit so those who don't get health insurance pay more in taxes

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hi Everybody,

So i posted on CNN earlier, but so many comments mine just get drowned out lol. So i was wondering what you guys think of my take on the Constitutional Argument for the Affordable Care Act, and what your arguments/counter-arguments are. Lets keep it civil if we can please.

My Take:

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 of the Constitution: Known as the Commerce clause, states: "The federal government shal have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

Thus, technically speaking, any economic entity or any amount of money that crosses state or national lines can be regulated by the federal government on the basis of this law.

Following this Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18 states that: "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"

Thus not only does the Constitution allow for the Federal Government to regulate commerce, it invests the government with the power to execute its own laws across all boundaries.

Now some are going to state that you don't go out of state for healthcare. No offense of course, but i blieve you are wrong.

Healthcare is an economic powerhouse that definitely crosses state lines.

Medical equipment is purchased from other states, and even abroad. Physicians and nurses and hospital staff payed for their education, more often than not, in another state or nation. Drugs are manufactured usually in Canada or Europe and brought in. So YES healthcare does cross state lines and as such can be regulated under the commerce act.

So in conlusion, the way im understanding the commerce clause, unless EVERY SINGLE PIECE of medical equipment is manufactured in your state, until all your physicians and nurses and staff are educated and trained in your state, and until every single drug used in your hospital is developed/packaged and assembled in your state, and until you live in your state from which you are born and never leave it and get healthcare anywhere else.....then it is considered interstate and international commerce, thus under the protection of the commerce clause.

Just my personal interpretation

So thoughts/opinions? Anyone want to post their arguments here too...please feel free id like to see them!

OK, genius, explain to me, in detail, how the fact that the government has the power to regulate interstate commerce gives them the power to dictate that people participate in it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

FYI---- Medicare is a mandate, a lovely one to be sure, but still a mandate and if you are an older person on social security, the government "takes" over $90 per month to pay for Medicare, so what is the difference??? This was originally a Republican idea...back in the 1990s when the Clintons were trying to pass health care, they wanted an employer mandate, but the republicans came out against that and "for" an individual mandate and they thought this was a wonderful idea, until President Obama took office and agreed with them....suddenly it became a terrible idea and unconstitutional.....what a lot of hooey on the right..........

If I have to explain the difference between the government taxing you and the government telling you to sign a contract with someone I am not sure you wll understand it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As was brought up, can the governent require everyone to own a cell phone with a GPS locator.

Supreme Court health care: Justice Roberts: Can the government make you buy a cell phone? - POLITICO.com

The mandate does not require everyone to have health insurance, it simply make sit so those who don't get health insurance pay more in taxes

It does not, but thanks for proving you are a complete ignoramus. In case you missed all the arguments in the Supreme Court yesterday, it seems all but certain that neither the mandate, nor the penalty, is a tax. The judges also rejected that the mandate doesn't require anyone to buy anything.

 

[Polk]

I hope Thomas writes the majority opinion

That'll happen approximately never.

 

[starcraftzzz]

I see so taxing people is now not considered a tax. Thanks for the wonderful insight.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see so taxing people is now not considered a tax. Thanks for the wonderful insight.

Talk about insight.

The simple fact is that not taxing people is considered not a tax. Congress was very specific when they wrote the law that neither the mandate, nor the penalty, was a tax.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I like things simple.

It's unconstitutional, there is no way the Government has the right to force a citizen to buy anything.

The lawyers can fill in all the blanks to that.........

But hopefully this will send Obamacare and Obama packing...........

 

[starcraftzzz]

I see so taxing people is now not considered a tax. Thanks for the wonderful insight.

Talk about insight.

The simple fact is that not taxing people is considered not a tax. Congress was very specific when they wrote the law that neither the mandate, nor the penalty, was a tax.

Hm so if congress passed a law that stating that your home belongs to someone else you'd accept it as reality. The fact remains that the mandate is a tax regardless of what dipshits like you say

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Talk about insight.

The simple fact is that not taxing people is considered not a tax. Congress was very specific when they wrote the law that neither the mandate, nor the penalty, was a tax.

Hm so if congress passed a law that stating that your home belongs to someone else you'd accept it as reality. The fact remains that the mandate is a tax regardless of what dipshits like you say

If I was the type to accept stupid laws as reality I would have called myself starcraftzzz.

The fact is that the government has repeatedly argued that the mandate is not a tax, and judges agree with them. The reason for that is rather simple, taxes go to the government, the mandate goes to corporations.

 

[beagle9]

Hi Everybody,

So i posted on CNN earlier, but so many comments mine just get drowned out lol. So i was wondering what you guys think of my take on the Constitutional Argument for the Affordable Care Act, and what your arguments/counter-arguments are. Lets keep it civil if we can please.

My Take:

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 of the Constitution: Known as the Commerce clause, states: "The federal government shal have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

Thus, technically speaking, any economic entity or any amount of money that crosses state or national lines can be regulated by the federal government on the basis of this law.

Following this Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18 states that: "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"

Thus not only does the Constitution allow for the Federal Government to regulate commerce, it invests the government with the power to execute its own laws across all boundaries.

Now some are going to state that you don't go out of state for healthcare. No offense of course, but i blieve you are wrong.

Healthcare is an economic powerhouse that definitely crosses state lines.

Medical equipment is purchased from other states, and even abroad. Physicians and nurses and hospital staff payed for their education, more often than not, in another state or nation. Drugs are manufactured usually in Canada or Europe and brought in. So YES healthcare does cross state lines and as such can be regulated under the commerce act.

So in conlusion, the way im understanding the commerce clause, unless EVERY SINGLE PIECE of medical equipment is manufactured in your state, until all your physicians and nurses and staff are educated and trained in your state, and until every single drug used in your hospital is developed/packaged and assembled in your state, and until you live in your state from which you are born and never leave it and get healthcare anywhere else.....then it is considered interstate and international commerce, thus under the protection of the commerce clause.

Just my personal interpretation

So thoughts/opinions? Anyone want to post their arguments here too...please feel free id like to see them!

OK, genius, explain to me, in detail, how the fact that the government has the power to regulate interstate commerce gives them the power to dictate that people participate in it.

Yes, what regulate generally meant for us in the past, is that the government would step in if we were being abused, and this in representation of us when they did this by going after the abusers, and not the abused. They cannot force us to buy a product that it cannot attest to, or in which it cannot claim for us either/or give to us any needed garantee's, that it will be worth our money when we purchase it.

The justices were right to bring up the broccoli for the heath purposes side of it, as an example of the government possibly wanting to expand on this law, once it aquires the precident to work from found within this law, way on down the road if it is passed.