Public Option is Unconstitutional

[PatekPhilippe]

Social Security and Medicare Projections:*2009 - Brief Analysis #662



Who's the dumbass now?

How Washington Rations - WSJ.com

The 81% Tax Increase - Forbes.com

XChange - The NBR Blog

I stand corrected. Medicare has trillions not billions in unfunded liabilities.

Medicare only goes broke if it doesn't increase revenues or cut back payouts. Just like any insurance company operating in a very inflationary environment. Just like your insurance I'm guessing. It would go broke in x number of years if it didn't raise its premiums or cut back on what it will pay for.

Medicare only goes broke if our government falls. Otherwise the Treasury will continue to print more and more money to fund all of the unfunded liabilities and put the debt on the next 10 generations of Americans. The fools who run Medicare know it has a bottomless wallet....private insurance companies DO NOT!!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yeah, because Medicare recipients CHOOSE to be on Medicare. Like they really have another option aside from being ungodly rich and paying out-of-pocket.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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,

It's not that the Constitution mandates any particular economic system per se, drooler. It's just that the Constitution mandates very specific jobs for the federal government, past which it is supposed to mind it's own damned business, a set of circumstances that would preclude economic systems where the government owns and micromanages everything, could we but get fools like you to grasp this simple concept.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

They're challenged all the time, cluebird. What planet have you been living on to not have noticed the screaming arguments on this subject before now? But who exactly are you expecting to "strike them down"? The very politicians and government employees who are using them to usurp the power of the people over their own lives? And are you seriously suggesting that because the government and its minions are not undoing their own skullduggery, that must mean that no skullduggery exists?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, fluffy, all of that was decided a long time ago. You are just moonbatting around. Fly off, please.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Would you care to explain to the class how food stamps, welfare, and Pell grants "compete with the private sector", exactly? As for government involvement in the housing sector, I believe we just recently saw how THAT "flurishes [sic]". No thanks.

I think you're going to have to present a real argument requiring thought rather than defaulting back to "You guys are just mean and picking on my hero, sob sob".

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

We already have all sorts of regulation on cars, food, homes, and even to some extent clothes. And lo and behold, it hasn't brought on the end of the world.

Is that supposed to be a serious, adult argument? "If the world doesn't end when we ignore and violate the laws, it's okay to do it"? Are you really sure you want to stake that specific standard of measurement out as your position?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Government is responsible for the welfare of the people. Isn't health care an important aspect of the "welfare of the people?" It seems to me that if Government wasn't doing everything it could to assure equitable access to health care, it would be irresponsible and even negligent on their part.

Government is not "responsible for the welfare of the people" to the extent that a mother is responsible for the welfare of her infant, nor is it at all appropriate for the government to be attempting to essentially emulate that relationship with its constituents.

Adult human beings are responsible for their own individual welfare and that of their dependents. Government's responsibility in this regard is to enable them to provide for their own welfare and to protect them from outside threats while they do so.

From where I sit, the only irresponsibility and negligence is on the part of allegedly competent adults who want to put on the metaphorical diaper and bib and wail for Mommy to come give them a bottle.

 

[Meister]

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.

Sounds like your content for the public option to work as good as medicare, which is bankrupt. Our government does not run businesses very well...like SS, Medicare, Welfare, and now you want to trust them with 1/5 of our economy as a business? That just scares the hell out of me, especially when there are viable alternatives.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Social Security and Medicare Projections:*2009 - Brief Analysis #662



Who's the dumbass now?

How Washington Rations - WSJ.com

The 81% Tax Increase - Forbes.com

XChange - The NBR Blog

I stand corrected. Medicare has trillions not billions in unfunded liabilities.

Medicare only goes broke if it doesn't increase revenues or cut back payouts. Just like any insurance company operating in a very inflationary environment. Just like your insurance I'm guessing. It would go broke in x number of years if it didn't raise its premiums or cut back on what it will pay for.

but hasn't our fearless leader promised no cuts in medicare and no taxes on 95% of Americans??

and again the quote attributed to me is not mine.

 

[Meister]

Medicare only goes broke if it doesn't increase revenues or cut back payouts. Just like any insurance company operating in a very inflationary environment. Just like your insurance I'm guessing. It would go broke in x number of years if it didn't raise its premiums or cut back on what it will pay for.

but hasn't our fearless leader promised no cuts in medicare and no taxes on 95% of Americans??

and again the quote attributed to me is not mine.

Why yes....yes he did, but I'm sure it will end up as a shell game.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Medicare only goes broke if it doesn't increase revenues or cut back payouts. Just like any insurance company operating in a very inflationary environment. Just like your insurance I'm guessing. It would go broke in x number of years if it didn't raise its premiums or cut back on what it will pay for.

Medicare only goes broke if our government falls. Otherwise the Treasury will continue to print more and more money to fund all of the unfunded liabilities and put the debt on the next 10 generations of Americans. The fools who run Medicare know it has a bottomless wallet....private insurance companies DO NOT!!!

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The health insurance industry robs the American people, grows wealthy by not insuring those at risk (the very reason that insurance was created!), then whines like little children whose candy is taken from them. The insurance industry brought this upon itself, because it betrayed its public interest.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We already have all sorts of regulation on cars, food, homes, and even to some extent clothes. And lo and behold, it hasn't brought on the end of the world.

really? is the government forcing you to purchase any of those items you metioned under threat of tax penalties or imprisonment?

Car insurance.

The government compels you to have car insurance to cover the OTHER person to whom you might cause damage. It does not compel you to insure yourself or your own property.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not at all. I just think your premise is unfounded. Your opinion, just to let you know, carries no weight. And medicare isn't free and works just fine. And so will health insurance reform. Let's move on. Nothing to see here, folks.

Which premise is that? The fact that I can choose not to drive, or the fact that, if the house bill is passed with a mandate, I can't choose not to have health care insurance without a penalty?

What about the Christian scientists, who don't believe in medical care, and what about the 20 year old, whose up to his ears in student loans? Maybe he has to forego a college education because he has to work fulltime in order to pay his healthcare insurance that he doesn't need.

Medicare isn't mandated.

And what's this, "Let's move on. Nothing to see here folks."
What's up with that? You sound like a security guard at a hospital emergency room.

Medicare isn't mandated. However, there is a clause that says, if you opt out from Medicare, you may lose your SS benefits.

You also sure as hell aren't going to get any OTHER medical insurance when you hit that age.

 

[Father Time]

really? is the government forcing you to purchase any of those items you metioned under threat of tax penalties or imprisonment?

Car insurance.

The government compels you to have car insurance to cover the OTHER person to whom you might cause damage. It does not compel you to insure yourself or your own property.

That seems so unnecessary. If I accidentally damage your property I'll have to pay for repairs whether I have insurance or not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Car insurance.

The government compels you to have car insurance to cover the OTHER person to whom you might cause damage. It does not compel you to insure yourself or your own property.

That seems so unnecessary. If I accidentally damage your property I'll have to pay for repairs whether I have insurance or not.

Yes, but what was happening was that a lot of people weren't carrying insurance, getting into accidents, and then the victims were faced with a protracted, painful battle to get the money out of them, clogging up the courts with lawsuits and meanwhile having to pay for the repairs themselves in order to get their cars working again.

 

[Meister]

The government compels you to have car insurance to cover the OTHER person to whom you might cause damage. It does not compel you to insure yourself or your own property.

That seems so unnecessary. If I accidentally damage your property I'll have to pay for repairs whether I have insurance or not.

Yes, but what was happening was that a lot of people weren't carrying insurance, getting into accidents, and then the victims were faced with a protracted, painful battle to get the money out of them, clogging up the courts with lawsuits and meanwhile having to pay for the repairs themselves in order to get their cars working again.

When that happened to me, my insurance paid for my car, and then went after the illegal alien for the costs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That seems so unnecessary. If I accidentally damage your property I'll have to pay for repairs whether I have insurance or not.

Yes, but what was happening was that a lot of people weren't carrying insurance, getting into accidents, and then the victims were faced with a protracted, painful battle to get the money out of them, clogging up the courts with lawsuits and meanwhile having to pay for the repairs themselves in order to get their cars working again.

When that happened to me, my insurance paid for my car, and then went after the illegal alien for the costs.

Not everyone has comprehensive coverage, though. And again, that still involved a protracted legal battle, just with your insurance company rather than you. They have the money to wait it out. The average driver does not.

Anyway, the idea was to make sure the everyday American driver got compensated for their damages in a relatively quick, painless matter.

 

[saveliberty]

This whole line of reasoning is junk. Driving is a priviledge, not a right. Imposing restrictions on a priviledge is very different than doing that to a right. Finally, this country apparently has given a right to citizens for health care? You don't even have a right to a piece of land with a home on it. You have the right to work and obtain it. The same should hold true for health care.