It just passed

[Dr Grump]

Just one more social program for the thieves in government to fatten their wallets on at the expense of ours.

And that's probably the true issue here.....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If its constitutional then you would have no problem citing where in the Constitution it gives Congress the right to require citizens to purchase health care.

I've posted what constitutional scholars on all sides have said.

beat a dead horse if you will.

sure u have...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/110214-jreeves-and-lessons-on-talking-out-of-your-arse.html#post2123153

 

[jreeves]

Nah, it's unconstitutional because anyone with a brain that's read the Constitution would have a clue.

Or did I miss the part where the Federal government is supposed to dictate who I will participate in socialism?

Nah, it's more like, why should the government force me to buy a PRODUCT? A COMMODITY TO BE BOUGHT AND SOLD?!

That is an abominable assault on liberty.

Horseshit.

Do you have car insurance?

I have car insurance I choose....but do you have a brain...NO

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Nah, it's unconstitutional because anyone with a brain that's read the Constitution would have a clue.

Or did I miss the part where the Federal government is supposed to dictate who I will participate in socialism?

Nah, it's more like, why should the government force me to buy a PRODUCT? A COMMODITY TO BE BOUGHT AND SOLD?!

That is an abominable assault on liberty.

Horseshit.

Do you have car insurance?

You don't have to buy car insurance. You can register a statement of financial responsibility.

 

[Chris]

Just one more social program for the thieves in government to fatten their wallets on at the expense of ours.

And that's probably the true issue here.....

No, the true issue here is corporate lobbyists control of Congress, and their ability to make something useful like providing healthcare a bad thing.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

sure u have...

see?

then there is this: Is Mandatory Health Insurance Constitutional? - - CBS News

Timothy Jost, a professor of Washington and Lee University School of Law who says he prefers a national public plan, has argued the constitutional principles -- saying in a Politico.com essay that the question was a Republican "talking point" that shouldn't be taken terribly seriously. "A basic principle of our constitutional system for the last t]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/109359-serious-discussion-thread-3.html

Timothy Jost, a professor of Washington and Lee University School of Law who says he prefers a national public plan, has argued the constitutional principles -- saying in a Politico.com essay that the question was a Republican "talking point" that shouldn't be taken terribly seriously.

I'm sure that Jost wouldn't be biased in his opinion...no

one of a few legal scholars who are quoted.

you didn't read the article because you can;t read at that level?

Still, not even conservative and libertarian scholars who would like to see mandatory health insurance shot down by the courts are betting it will be, although Georgetown's Randy Barnett holds out some hope. Call it the difference between political preference and reality, or the difference between what is and what might be.


Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote an article responding to Gonzales v. Raich that concludes the decision "seems to all but eliminate the prospect of meaningful judicial restriction of congressional Commerce Clause authority." Somin writes for the Volokh.com Web site, where he says: "It is extremely rare for the Court to strike down a law that enjoys strong majority support from both the general public and the political elite, and is a major item on the current political agenda. Doing that is likely to create a head-on confrontation between the Court and the political branches of government, which the Court will almost certainly lose, as happened when the Court struck down various New Deal laws in the 1930s." He adds that while the Supreme Court is likely to uphold mandatory health insurance, "such a law would be unconstitutional under the correct interpretation of the Commerce Clause -- or any interpretation that takes the constitutional text seriously."

 

[elvis]

Just one more social program for the thieves in government to fatten their wallets on at the expense of ours.

And that's probably the true issue here.....

No, the true issue here is corporate lobbyists control of Congress, and their ability to make something useful like providing healthcare a bad thing.

so the lobbyists are responsible for this bill?

 

[jreeves]

see?

then there is this: Is Mandatory Health Insurance Constitutional? - - CBS News
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/109359-serious-discussion-thread-3.html

Timothy Jost, a professor of Washington and Lee University School of Law who says he prefers a national public plan, has argued the constitutional principles -- saying in a Politico.com essay that the question was a Republican "talking point" that shouldn't be taken terribly seriously.

I'm sure that Jost wouldn't be biased in his opinion...no

one of a few legal scholars who are quoted.

you didn't read the article because you can;t read at that level?

Still, not even conservative and libertarian scholars who would like to see mandatory health insurance shot down by the courts are betting it will be, although Georgetown's Randy Barnett holds out some hope. Call it the difference between political preference and reality, or the difference between what is and what might be.


Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote an article responding to Gonzales v. Raich that concludes the decision "seems to all but eliminate the prospect of meaningful judicial restriction of congressional Commerce Clause authority." Somin writes for the Volokh.com Web site, where he says: "It is extremely rare for the Court to strike down a law that enjoys strong majority support from both the general public and the political elite, and is a major item on the current political agenda. Doing that is likely to create a head-on confrontation between the Court and the political branches of government, which the Court will almost certainly lose, as happened when the Court struck down various New Deal laws in the 1930s." He adds that while the Supreme Court is likely to uphold mandatory health insurance, "such a law would be unconstitutional under the correct interpretation of the Commerce Clause -- or any interpretation that takes the constitutional text seriously."

I like this article better...
Is Government Health Care Constitutional? - WSJ.com
Is a government-dominated health-care system unconstitutional? A strong case can be made for that proposition, based on the same "right to privacy" that underlies such landmark Supreme Court decisions as Roe v. Wade.

The details of this year's health-care reform bill are still being hammered out. But the end result is sure to be byzantine in complexity. Washington will have immense say over how, when and through whom Americans are treated. Moreover, despite the administration's public pronouncements about painless cuts in wasteful spending, only the most credulous believe that some form of government-directed health-care rationing can be avoided as a means of controlling costs.

The Supreme Court created the right to privacy in the 1960s and used it to strike down a series of state and federal regulations of personal (mostly sexual) conduct. This line of cases began with Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 (involving marital birth control), and includes the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

The court's underlying rationale was not abortion-specific. Rather, the justices posited a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must remain free of government regulation, except in the most exceptional circumstances. As the court explained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), "these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life."

It is, of course, difficult to imagine choices more "central to personal dignity and autonomy" than measures to be taken for the prevention and treatment of disease -- measures that may be essential to preserve or extend life itself. Indeed, when the overwhelming moral issues that surround the abortion question are stripped away, what is left is a medical procedure determined to be "necessary" by an expectant mother and her physician.

If the government cannot proscribe -- or even "unduly burden," to use another of the Supreme Court's analytical frameworks -- access to abortion, how can it proscribe access to other medical procedures, including transplants, corrective or restorative surgeries, chemotherapy treatments, or a myriad of other health services that individuals may need or desire?

This type of "burden" analysis will be especially problematic for a national health system because, in the health area, proper care often depends upon an individual's unique physical and even genetic history and characteristics. One size clearly does not fit all, but that is the very essence of governmental regulation -- to impose a regularity (if not uniformity) in the application of governmental power and the dispersal of its largess. Taking key decisions away from patient and physician, or otherwise limiting their available choices, will render any new system constitutionally vulnerable.

It is true, of course, that forms of rationing already exist in our current system. No one who has experienced the marked reluctance to treat aggressively lethal illnesses in the elderly can doubt that. However, what may be permissible for private actors -- including doctors and insurance companies -- is not necessarily lawful when done by the government.

Obviously, the government does not have to pay for any and all services individual citizens may desire. And simply refusing to approve a procedure or treatment under applicable reimbursement rules, as under the government-run Medicare and Medicaid, does not make the system unconstitutional. But if over time, as many critics fear, a "public option" health insurance plan turns into what amounts to a single-payer system, the constitutional issues regarding treatment and reimbursement decisions will be manifold.

The same will be true of a quasi-private system where the government claims a large role in defining acceptable health-insurance coverage and treatments. There will be all sorts of "undue burdens" on the rights of patients to receive the care they may want. Then the litigation will begin.

Anyone who imagines that Congress can simply avoid the constitutional issues -- and lawsuits -- by withdrawing federal court jurisdiction over the new health system must think again. A brief review of the Supreme Court's recent war-on-terror decisions, brought by or on behalf of detained enemy combatants, will disabuse that notion. This area of governmental authority was once nearly immune from judicial intervention. Over the past five years, however, the Supreme Court (supposedly the nonpolitical branch) has unapologetically transformed itself into a full-fledged, policy-making partner with the president and Congress.

In the process, the justices blew past specific congressional efforts to limit their jurisdiction and involvement like a hot rod in the desert. Questions of basic constitutionality (however the court may define them) cannot now be shielded from judicial review.

 

[Avatar4321]

Horseshit.

Do you have car insurance?

Who is forced to buy car insurance? I'm sure not.

 

[Avatar4321]

Just one more social program for the thieves in government to fatten their wallets on at the expense of ours.

And that's probably the true issue here.....

No, the true issue here is corporate lobbyists control of Congress, and their ability to make something useful like providing healthcare a bad thing.

The Constitution of the United States makes Federal intervention into the health care industry a bad thing. It's designed to keep our nation free.

But, of course, you prefer totalitarianism.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Horseshit.

Do you have car insurance?

Who is forced to buy car insurance? I'm sure not.

Nobody is. You have the option to file a statement of financial responsibility.

 

[jreeves]

see?

then there is this: Is Mandatory Health Insurance Constitutional? - - CBS News
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/109359-serious-discussion-thread-3.html

Timothy Jost, a professor of Washington and Lee University School of Law who says he prefers a national public plan, has argued the constitutional principles -- saying in a Politico.com essay that the question was a Republican "talking point" that shouldn't be taken terribly seriously.

I'm sure that Jost wouldn't be biased in his opinion...no

one of a few legal scholars who are quoted.

you didn't read the article because you can;t read at that level?

Still, not even conservative and libertarian scholars who would like to see mandatory health insurance shot down by the courts are betting it will be, although Georgetown's Randy Barnett holds out some hope. Call it the difference between political preference and reality, or the difference between what is and what might be.


Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote an article responding to Gonzales v. Raich that concludes the decision "seems to all but eliminate the prospect of meaningful judicial restriction of congressional Commerce Clause authority." Somin writes for the Volokh.com Web site, where he says: "It is extremely rare for the Court to strike down a law that enjoys strong majority support from both the general public and the political elite, and is a major item on the current political agenda. Doing that is likely to create a head-on confrontation between the Court and the political branches of government, which the Court will almost certainly lose, as happened when the Court struck down various New Deal laws in the 1930s." He adds that while the Supreme Court is likely to uphold mandatory health insurance, "such a law would be unconstitutional under the correct interpretation of the Commerce Clause -- or any interpretation that takes the constitutional text seriously."

Fucktard I know that you were suppose to use an apostrophe here dumbass. ...you didn't read the article because you can;t read at that level?

 

[Avatar4321]

Horseshit.

Do you have car insurance?

Who is forced to buy car insurance? I'm sure not.

Nobody is. You have the option to file a statement of financial responsibility.

You also have the option not to drive a car.

 

[L.K.Eder]

y'all gonna die.

 

[Chris]

The wailing and knashing of teeth on the right is quite humorous. This is a great day for America. We have finally caught up to the rest of the world.

Here is a list of countries with national health insurance..

Afghanistan, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

 

[Newby]

Oh yeah, it's un-constitutional because some cross dressing closet case in conservative cloth says so?

Nah, it's unconstitutional because anyone with a brain that's read the Constitution would have a clue.

Or did I miss the part where the Federal government is supposed to dictate who I will participate in socialism?

Nah, it's more like, why should the government force me to buy a PRODUCT? A COMMODITY TO BE BOUGHT AND SOLD?!

That is an abominable assault on liberty.

What's ironic is that the leftwing nuts on here don't see how this is blatant support for the insurance industry they have condemned and claimed to hate. Now the US goverment is handing them more customers at the point of a gun. Guess the insurance lobbyists did a great job. Gotta love it.

 

[WillowTree]

Nah, it's unconstitutional because anyone with a brain that's read the Constitution would have a clue.

Or did I miss the part where the Federal government is supposed to dictate who I will participate in socialism?

Nah, it's more like, why should the government force me to buy a PRODUCT? A COMMODITY TO BE BOUGHT AND SOLD?!

That is an abominable assault on liberty.

What's ironic is that the leftwing nuts on here don't see how this is blatant support for the insurance industry they have condemned and claimed to hate. Now the US goverment is handing them more customers at the point of a gun. Guess the insurance lobbyists did a great job. Gotta love it.

don't be fooled by that misnomer. the gubbmint will place such restrictions and rules and taxes on the insurance companies as to drive them out of business,, that's the end game, the public option,, everything they try to sell you in between now and the public option is pure lies.

 

[Newby]

Nah, it's unconstitutional because anyone with a brain that's read the Constitution would have a clue.

Or did I miss the part where the Federal government is supposed to dictate who I will participate in socialism?

Nah, it's more like, why should the government force me to buy a PRODUCT? A COMMODITY TO BE BOUGHT AND SOLD?!

That is an abominable assault on liberty.

Horseshit.

Do you have car insurance?

Does everyone pay for their own when they CHOOSE to own and drive a car? Stupid anaology.

 

[SFC Ollie]

What a great victory this is for America.

All the forces of darkness were arrayed against this, the Republicans, the corporate lobbyists, Fox Lies...

And yet it still passed.

Praise Jesus!

You really need to pay attention more, Big Pharm and Insurance companies are the big winners in this. They cut the deals with the Dems.

 

[Newby]

Nah, it's more like, why should the government force me to buy a PRODUCT? A COMMODITY TO BE BOUGHT AND SOLD?!

That is an abominable assault on liberty.

What's ironic is that the leftwing nuts on here don't see how this is blatant support for the insurance industry they have condemned and claimed to hate. Now the US goverment is handing them more customers at the point of a gun. Guess the insurance lobbyists did a great job. Gotta love it.

don't be fooled by that misnomer. the gubbmint will place such restrictions and rules and taxes on the insurance companies as to drive them out of business,, that's the end game, the public option,, everything they try to sell you in between now and the public option is pure lies.

Oh, I know that, but the idiots on here having a party about it don't see how their politicians are in bed with corporate USA, if not more so, than the other side of the aisle.