Public Option is Unconstitutional

[ihopehefails]

The proposed health care legislation and the deathboard-public option is being compared to the post office and if that is so why doesn't the public option need a constitutional amendment like the post office needs in order for it to exist. Shouldn't we go the constitutional route first with this and create an amendment for it just like the post office and federal created roads?

 

[Rinata]

The proposed health care legislation and the deathboard-public option is being compared to the post office and if that is so why doesn't the public option need a constitutional amendment like the post office needs in order for it to exist. Shouldn't we go the constitutional route first with this and create an amendment for it just like the post office and federal created roads?

What are you talking about??? What do you think Medicare does??? I would imagine that most medicare recipients choose the public option. It was made available to them in 1973, if I am not mistaken. And it works fine.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course a constitutional amendment is needed, but that doesn't matter in Washington, D.C.

 

[California Girl]

It is also constitutionally tricky to refuse cover to illegal aliens..... dispite what the POTUS says.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The proposed health care legislation and the deathboard-public option is being compared to the post office and if that is so why doesn't the public option need a constitutional amendment like the post office needs in order for it to exist. Shouldn't we go the constitutional route first with this and create an amendment for it just like the post office and federal created roads?

What are you talking about??? What do you think Medicare does??? I would imagine that most medicare recipients choose the public option. It was made available to them in 1973, if I am not mistaken. And it works fine.

OK genius...then why doesn't Obama open medicare up to the poor and unemployed? Why doesn't he then say that we need tort reform/medical malpractice reform? Why doesn't Obama then actually accomplish fraud reduction by instituting a dedicated task force of law enforcement agencies to root it out? Why does Obama think cutting 500 billion dollars from Medicare eliminates 500 billion dollars in Medicare fraud? Why does he insist on starting ANOTHER ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM that will cost 1 trillion +++++ when we already have a program that "works fine."?

What kind of fucked up logic is this?

 

[Skull Pilot]

What is unconstitutional is the government forcing people to buy insurance. And not just any insurance but the insurance they tell us is "acceptable"

What's next, the government telling us we have to buy "acceptable" cars, "acceptable" food and clothes, "acceptable" homes?

Oh and don't forget that if we don't buy what the government tells us to buy we get fined or thrown in jail.

 

[California Girl]

What is unconstitutional is the government forcing people to buy insurance. And not just any insurance but the insurance they tell us is "acceptable"

What's next, the government telling us we have to buy "acceptable" cars, "acceptable" food and clothes, "acceptable" homes?

Oh and don't forget that if we don't buy what the government tells us to buy we get fined or thrown in jail.

If you want to know what we are in for in the next 5/10 years, come visit the Nanny States of Europe. The UK is incredible in its ability to tell its citizens how to live.

 

[chanel]

Nancy Pelosi thinks constitutional issues are no big deal.

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi avoided answering the question, probably because she doesn’t have an answer. Her spokesman said that it was “not a serious question,” but if so, one would presume that Pelosi or her office could provide an easily-corroborated answer. After all, the Constitution is where Congress derives all of its authority. It’s not exactly a lengthy document. How difficult is it to cite the clause that enables Congress to impose a mandate on its citizens to spend money on anything but a tax?

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Pelosi: Constitutionality of individual mandates not “serious” question

 

[JakeStarkey]

The irrelevant far whacko right are moonbatting around and barking unintelligibly.

Yes, health insurance reform is necessary. Yes, the government has the constitutional right to do it. Yes, the citzens' health is better in the European nations who have it. Yes, those Europeans pay far less for health care than we do.

Whacko far right, go stumble on down the road. Your kind is not wanted here.

 

[jillian]

I'm just wondering why the rigntwingnuts think it's a constitutional issue.

But I'm sure they're all great "constitutionalists", so I'm sure one of these great Constitutionalists will be kind enough to point us toward the section of the Constitution that mandates any particular economic system,

 

[California Girl]

I'm just wondering why the rigntwingnuts think it's a constitutional issue.

But I'm sure they're all great "constitutionalists", so I'm sure one of these great Constitutionalists will be kind enough to point us toward the section of the Constitution that mandates any particular economic system,

I'm by no means a Constitutional lawyer, but my understanding is that refusing cover to illegal aliens is unconstitutional. I keep getting told that the 14th Amendment covers it but the fact is that the SC has ruled that 'we, the people,' does not specify citizens.

So, until I hear it - from the SC themselves - I'm not prepared to support any kind of plan that I believe may provide cover for illegal aliens. Let the SC tell us whether or not it is constitutional.... Not that I, for one second, believe that Obama might lie to us.

 

[ba1614]

What is unconstitutional is the government forcing people to buy insurance. And not just any insurance but the insurance they tell us is "acceptable"

What's next, the government telling us we have to buy "acceptable" cars, "acceptable" food and clothes, "acceptable" homes?

Oh and don't forget that if we don't buy what the government tells us to buy we get fined or thrown in jail.

If you want to know what we are in for in the next 5/10 years, come visit the Nanny States of Europe. The UK is incredible in its ability to tell its citizens how to live.

I find it fascinating that the Liberal bastion known as Europe has been, and continue, to elect more conservative governments, and abandoning the "Democrat" parties.
It'll probably take a decade or so for much of America to realize that eventually you will in fact run out of other peoples money, trying to support the lazy and useless from cradle to grave.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm just wondering why the rigntwingnuts think it's a constitutional issue.

But I'm sure they're all great "constitutionalists", so I'm sure one of these great Constitutionalists will be kind enough to point us toward the section of the Constitution that mandates any particular economic system,

Why is one a "wingnut" if one does not want the government to force them to buy health insurance?

Why is one a wingnut if ones does not want the government to force one to buy a particular kind of insurance that will probably be more expensive than the insurance one has now?

Why is one a "wingnut" to question the constitutionality of the government telling one what to buy and establishing draconian tax penalties or incarcerating those who do not comply?

What does the forced purchase of government approved insurance have to do with the lack of mention of an economic system in the constitution?

 

[California Girl]

What is unconstitutional is the government forcing people to buy insurance. And not just any insurance but the insurance they tell us is "acceptable"

What's next, the government telling us we have to buy "acceptable" cars, "acceptable" food and clothes, "acceptable" homes?

Oh and don't forget that if we don't buy what the government tells us to buy we get fined or thrown in jail.

If you want to know what we are in for in the next 5/10 years, come visit the Nanny States of Europe. The UK is incredible in its ability to tell its citizens how to live.

I find it fascinating that the Liberal bastion known as Europe has been, and continue, to elect more conservative governments, and abandoning the "Democrat" parties.
It'll probably take a decade or so for much of America to realize that eventually you will in fact run out of other peoples money, trying to support the lazy and useless from cradle to grave.

It's the backlash against the forced 'political correctness' over here. When I first arrived, I said 'WTF? If your governments continue to ram this PC shit down people's throats, all they will do is provide fertile recruitment for the far right parties'.

What do we see in the EU generally? The rise of the far right parties. Even in Brtain, in the news today is the prediction that 1 in 5 voters are considering voting for the British National Party (BNP) - and they are a bunch of racist SOBs.

 

[saveliberty]

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and many federal programs are NOT Constitutional. All you need to do is look at the original Constitution with the first ten Amendments to see that. No mention of any of these social progarms. Once the sixteenth amendment was passed, to help pay for war, it became obivous to Congress they could expand government with this revenue increase.

In the beginning, the Constitution protected life (through common defense), liberty (through our God given rights) and pursuit of happpiness (control of your personal and business affairs). Redistributing wealth is not even close to meeting these goals. Constitutionally protected rights to pursue your own wealth is. The framers would have seen redistribution of wealth for what it is...legalized stealing. Before one of the liberals jumps in here and attempts to refute this, the Revolution started because of the King limiting rights of those in America and taxation without representation remember? Those folks were keenly aware of what a tax meant.

 

[rightwinger]

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and many federal programs are NOT Constitutional. All you need to do is look at the original Constitution with the first ten Amendments to see that. No mention of any of these social progarms. Once the sixteenth amendment was passed, to help pay for war, it became obivous to Congress they could expand government with this revenue increase.

In the beginning, the Constitution protected life (through common defense), liberty (through our God given rights) and pursuit of happpiness (control of your personal and business affairs). Redistributing wealth is not even close to meeting these goals. Constitutionally protected rights to pursue your own wealth is. The framers would have seen redistribution of wealth for what it is...legalized stealing. Before one of the liberals jumps in here and attempts to refute this, the Revolution started because of the King limiting rights of those in America and taxation without representation remember? Those folks were keenly aware of what a tax meant.

They are not????

Then why haven't they been challenged and stricken down? Maybe you are reading a different Constitution

 

[JakeStarkey]

saveliberty's arguments are those of a delusionaltoid of the far loony fringe wingnut right. They are reactionaries, not even conservates, not even remotely.

 

[JimH52]

Why would a public option be any different from:

-government funded mortgage inducement, such as first time home buyers and VHDA
-government funded income inducements, such as food stamps and welfare checks
-government funded education enhancements, such as Pell grants and the like.

All of these programs compete with the private sector, directly or indirectly, and yet they exist and flurish. So, with proper guidelines and safeguards, a public health option should be possible. Rather than kill the private insurance industry, a public option would serve to force the private sector to provide better services at a better premium.

This whole argument is not about health care reform, it is about the GOP trying to take Obama down. That has been said. It is sad when political gains are given precedent over a fair and reasonable debate concerning the furture of this country....sad

 

[Avatar4321]

All of health care reform short of allowing people to by insurance policies across state lines should be unconstitutional as well.

 

[JimH52]

All of health care reform short of allowing people to by insurance policies across state lines should be unconstitutional as well.

Please give me a quote for that assertion. I am willing to listen.