Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

[Bern80]

Bern08, you need to go back to high school civics class. The Supreme Court's ruling on a case is final, there is no higher authority.

And you need to go back to english class and learn the difference between opinion and truth. That is what the court renders, AN OPINION. Yes it is the final word. None of which means their OPINION will be the correct interpretation of the law.

Their opinion is the only opinion that matters.

Also true. Still doesn't change the fact that there opinion may not coincide with the intent of the law. Now that that's out of the way perhaps you can mature past puberty, grow a pair, and answer the question:

How is mandate requiring the purchase of insurance considered constitutional under the general welfare clause?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And you need to go back to english class and learn the difference between opinion and truth. That is what the court renders, AN OPINION. Yes it is the final word. None of which means their OPINION will be the correct interpretation of the law.

Their opinion is the only opinion that matters.

Also true. Still doesn't change the fact that there opinion may not coincide with the intent of the law. Now that that's out of the way perhaps you can mature past puberty, grow a pair, and answer the question:

How is mandate requiring the purchase of insurance considered constitutional under the general welfare clause?

Have you conceded that taxation for health insurance is constitutional? Because I can't explain it without that.

 

[Ame®icano]

This is the first clause of article I section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;


It says right there congress can tax to provide for the general welfare.

So you're wrong.

Let's start with preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

When the Founding Fathers said that “We The People” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the "general welfare".

You said Article 1. Section 8. gives power to Congress to do exactly that, and that's where you're wrong. If our Founding Fathers meant to say what you are saying, then "general welfare clasue" wouldn't need to give Congress specific powers to establish courts, maintain the army, mint coins etc, they would simply include all that in all inclusive phrase "promote the general welfare".

If you read the preamble, you will notice that one of the reasons to write the Constitution is to "promote general welfare" for all the people. It doesn't say it should favor special interest groups or certain class, it doesn't say there should be privileged individuals or groups. It's simply says that nobody is favored in this society where everyone would enjoy "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" rights written in the Declaration of Independence.

Everything clear now?

 

[Ame®icano]

I don't believe SCOTUS has ever ruled because suit hasn't been filed.

Gubmint has basically been playing "we'll do as we please and you can sue if you don't like it" since FDR.

Nobody has challenged the constitutionality of Medicaid and Medicare. Johnson had super-super-majority in the Congress (67 democrats) when Medicare was passed, with all but 17 republicans voting for it. Who would challenge that majority anyway?

 

[Ame®icano]

Maybe because the framers had an intuition that smarmy know-it-all authoritarian thugs would do their dead-level best to interpret "general welfare" as generally as they possibly could, more than likely to their particular political benefit?

It says congress has the power to tax and spend for the general welfare and the common defence. If they didn't MEAN Congress to have that power then why would they put that in there?

Don't you think that common defense IS part of general welfare? Why to list is separately?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Nobody has challenged the constitutionality of Medicaid and Medicare. Johnson had super-super-majority in the Congress (67 democrats) when Medicare was passed, with all but 17 republicans voting for it. Who would challenge that majority anyway?

They should have, but it's not surprising they didn't. The Republican Party has a long history of having a jelly spine and running away from a challenge.

 

[Contumacious]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

They are BOTH Unconstitutional.

But scumbag FDR threatened to abolish the SCOTUS if they didn't approve his statist scams.

.

 

[Ame®icano]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

They are BOTH Unconstitutional.

But scumbag FDR threatened to abolish the SCOTUS if they didn't approve his statist scams.

.

Are you talking about Social Security of Medicare?

 

[Bern80]

Their opinion is the only opinion that matters.

Also true. Still doesn't change the fact that there opinion may not coincide with the intent of the law. Now that that's out of the way perhaps you can mature past puberty, grow a pair, and answer the question:

How is mandate requiring the purchase of insurance considered constitutional under the general welfare clause?

Have you conceded that taxation for health insurance is constitutional? Because I can't explain it without that.

Whether I do or not is irrelevant. For the 100th time or so mandating that people buy something is not a tax. So how exactly can it be constitutional under a clause that only deals with taxes?

 

[Bern80]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

They are BOTH Unconstitutional.

But scumbag FDR threatened to abolish the SCOTUS if they didn't approve his statist scams.

.

Are you talking about Social Security of Medicare?

They both would be, even under the broader definition of the general welfare clause because they don't meet the criteria of 'general' - as in everyone - of the general welfare clause. Even broadly defined the intent still remained that federal taxes had to be for the benefit of everyone. This is not true of Medicare or SS. Every is taxes for them, but only specific groups of people get to use the benefits from those taxes.

 

[Ame®icano]

Also true. Still doesn't change the fact that there opinion may not coincide with the intent of the law. Now that that's out of the way perhaps you can mature past puberty, grow a pair, and answer the question:

How is mandate requiring the purchase of insurance considered constitutional under the general welfare clause?

Have you conceded that taxation for health insurance is constitutional? Because I can't explain it without that.

Whether I do or not is irrelevant. For the 100th time or so mandating that people buy something is not a tax. So how exactly can it be constitutional under a clause that only deals with taxes?

We are mandated to pay into Social Security, with that payment we're buying it. Mandating to pay for anything is a tax.

 

[Contumacious]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

They are BOTH Unconstitutional.

But scumbag FDR threatened to abolish the SCOTUS if they didn't approve his statist scams.

.

Are you talking about Social Security of Medicare?

Both.

No authority was ever granted to the federal government to tax "A" in order to support "B".

.

 

[Bern80]

Have you conceded that taxation for health insurance is constitutional? Because I can't explain it without that.

Whether I do or not is irrelevant. For the 100th time or so mandating that people buy something is not a tax. So how exactly can it be constitutional under a clause that only deals with taxes?

We are mandated to pay into Social Security, with that payment we're buying it. Mandating to pay for anything is a tax.

I just find this baffling. Why are you trying so hard to make excuses for government to require you to do something? Broadly by this logic government can get away with requiring you to purchased pretty much anything then. It is just boggling how badly you want government to control your life.

You are wrong on so many levels it's not funny. If the above is true than pretty much everything you consumer is a tax, which it isn't. Secondly, no you are not buy social security. The money you put in is not going to be transferred to you or saved for you. SS is not your own personal bank account. It is going to pay for benefits of others now.

 

[Ame®icano]

Whether I do or not is irrelevant. For the 100th time or so mandating that people buy something is not a tax. So how exactly can it be constitutional under a clause that only deals with taxes?

We are mandated to pay into Social Security, with that payment we're buying it. Mandating to pay for anything is a tax.

I just find this baffling. Why are you trying so hard to make excuses for government to require you to do something? Broadly by this logic government can get away with requiring you to purchased pretty much anything then. It is just boggling how badly you want government to control your life.

You are wrong on so many levels it's not funny. If the above is true than pretty much everything you consumer is a tax, which it isn't. Secondly, no you are not buy social security. The money you put in is not going to be transferred to you or saved for you. SS is not your own personal bank account. It is going to pay for benefits of others now.

@ red - That's exactly what government is trying to do.

@ blue - SS is unsustainable ponzi scheme that government use as their own personal bank account.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

They are BOTH Unconstitutional.

But scumbag FDR threatened to abolish the SCOTUS if they didn't approve his statist scams.

.

Are you talking about Social Security of Medicare?

Both.

No authority was ever granted to the federal government to tax "A" in order to support "B".

.

I have no idea to what you are referring, its not possible to tax letters.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

@ blue - SS is unsustainable ponzi scheme that government use as their own personal bank account.

The government by definition does not have a personal bank account.

Ponzi schemes aren't backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

 

[driveby]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

Do you get fined and/or go to jail if you don't participate in Medicare ? ......

 

[Ame®icano]

@ blue - SS is unsustainable ponzi scheme that government use as their own personal bank account.

The government by definition does not have a personal bank account.

Ponzi schemes aren't backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

Think again. Where SS money is now? IOU?

What else SS is then one giant ponzi scheme. You pay into it now, while someone else getting money. You also don't know if you'll ever be able to get any money. Think, dammit.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

@ blue - SS is unsustainable ponzi scheme that government use as their own personal bank account.

The government by definition does not have a personal bank account.

Ponzi schemes aren't backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

Neither is Social Security

 

[FA_Q2]

Give it up; spidermantuba is incapable of actual thought. I cannot believe that after all this time there is still some question as to the difference between a tax and a purchase. TAXING TO SUPPORT GOVERNMENT PROJECTS ARE NOT THE SAME AS A REQUIREMENT TO PURCHASE. If you cannot at least admit this then you are incapable of a debate as rational thought escapes you. It is absolutely tyrannical to give the government the right to require you to purchase anything it feels is necessary. In this respect, a public option does not violate this and could be construed as constitutional but even in this case I believe it is not as that power is not enumerated within the constitution.