What is wrong with Constitutional government?

[P@triot]

... it's going to be repealed when Romney takes office and the whole thing will have been for not anyway.

Wanna bet?

Why would you even want to bet on something that obvious?!?! You're telling me you really believe the GOP is going to leave Obamacare alone once they assume power in January?

 

[Greenbeard]

The only thing failing is the cost

False. It's been well-known for years now that we have a quality chasm and an alarming patient safety record in this country. Papering over the vast problems implicit in the way our system works is what got us to where we are now. It's time to change or crumble.

Why do you think an aspirin that costs $.17 each at a drug store costs $25 in a hospital?!?! You think the hospital is out to get you? Really? Honestly?

Hospitals absolutely are out to get every cent they can. That's been the case since long before EMTALA passed in 1986 (see TEFRA of 1982 for one major response to this fact). Don't tell me you just fell off the turnip truck.

Why won't you answer the question?

Because your question assumes some correlation between my support and constitutionality. These are completely orthogonal concepts. The fact that you have to go to such pains to develop such an absurd hypothetical should clue you into the tenuousness of your position.

 

[dblack]

And to hide behind tax is a nonsensical argument. How can you tax me on something for not taking part in it? Can you hit me with income tax if I'm not working? Can you hit me with sales tax if I'm not buying anything? Then how in the hell can you "tax" me for NOT purchasing healthcare insurance?!?! You know that doesn't hold up.

Would you consider it constitutional if the law were amended to impose an across the board tax increase on everyone, with a tax incentive for people who have health insurance (essentially letting them skip out on the tax hike)?

 

[dblack]

... it's going to be repealed when Romney takes office and the whole thing will have been for not anyway.

Wanna bet?

Why would you even want to bet on something that obvious?!?! You're telling me you really believe the GOP is going to leave Obamacare alone once they assume power in January?

Romney won't make any significant changes to the law. I still have some hope others will fight it, but a Republican effort would be largely neutered if a Republican president wasn't on board.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's the entire point - the Constitution was specifically intended to not be "easy" to amend, and that is to protect us from bad legislation such as Obamacare.

The Constitution was not deigned to protect us from ‘bad’ legislation, it was designed to limit the authority of government when it enacts legislation offensive to the Founding Document.

Whether legislation is ‘bad’ or not is Constitutionally irrelevant, and a matter left for Congress to address.

Look, if Obamacare was a good idea and good for America, the overwhelming majority of America would support it and the Constitution could be amended for it. The fact that Obama knows he would never get the votes necessary to amend the Constitution (even with the super majority he enjoyed in both the House & Senate - because it requires 3/4 of the states as well) is just proof of how bad this legislation is.

Again, whether or not the ACA is ‘good law’ is irrelevant. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress was within its authority to enact the Measure, it was not necessary to amend the Constitution to address the issue of those without medical coverage, or control the expense of healthcare.

Forget about how illegal all of this is, from strictly a common sense stand point, it is so wrong on such a deep level that a person, or a few people, or a small group can deem something a problem and then enact legislation to "correct" that perceived problem. Who is Obama or Nancy Pelosi to state that we had a problem regarding lack of health insurance which required legislation in the first place? Who are they to decide (as they have for themselves) that healthcare costs were "too high"?

The ACA was enacted by Congressional majority, by members of Congress elected by the people, Congress derives its authority from that source to enact all legislation, legislation which is presumed to be Constitutional until a court rules otherwise.

They simply are not Constitutionally empowered to make those decisions. They have 18 specific enumerated powers, and the cost of healthcare or the lack of those with insurance are NOT one of those powers.

Of course Congress is authorized to make such decisions; in addition to its fundamental authority realized through the democratic process, Congress is also authorized by both expressed and implied powers to enact legislation determined appropriate to the National interest.

 

[P@triot]

Because your question assumes some correlation between my support and constitutionality. These are completely orthogonal concepts. The fact that you have to go to such pains to develop such an absurd hypothetical should clue you into the tenuousness of your position.

So you're finally admitting you are wrong? In no way does my question assume correlation between Constitutionality and your "support"? I simply asked if it were ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court, would you have no problem with it and you would support it?

You don't want to answer because you know it PROVES you are wrong. Just because the Supreme Court rules something "constitutional" doesn't mean it actually is. If the Supreme Court gets packed with radicals tomorrow and they rule that raping women is legal and constitutional, you know damn well you'd have a fuck'n aneurism about it (if you're even the slightest bit of a decent human being) and you would NOT accept it.

The federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to force citizens to purchase anything. Period. End of story. And no ruling by the Supreme Court changes that because the Supreme Court is not empowered to make changes to the Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

The Constitution was not deigned to protect us from ‘bad’ legislation, it was designed to limit the authority of government when it enacts legislation offensive to the Founding Document. Whether legislation is ‘bad’ or not is Constitutionally irrelevant, and a matter left for Congress to address.

Semantics. But I'll play your game, because I'll win even playing by your rules. When I said "bad legislation", I meant overstepping the limit of their authority, which is exactly what Obamcare did, and you know it. The federal government does not have the power to force citizens to purchase anything. Period. And you know it.

Again, whether or not the ACA is ‘good law’ is irrelevant. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress was within its authority to enact the Measure, it was not necessary to amend the Constitution to address the issue of those without medical coverage, or control the expense of healthcare.

Uh, yes it is the way it was enacted. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to concern themselves with the cost of healthcare or how many people are insured. The federal government is limited to 18 enumerated powers delegated to them by the states. That's right, the states have supreme power in the US, and they delegated 18 specific powers to the federal government in the best interest of the nation (for instance - defense - you can't have 50 states debating about defense, there has to be ONE entity in control of that). So if Obamacare is going to exist at the federal level (as it does now), then is absolutely requires an amdendment making healthcare costs and health insurance availability the responsibility of the federal government. If the democrats want to do this at the state level, then it would not require an amendment.

Furthermore, it is not at the luxury of the Supreme Court to decide what needs and amendment and what does not. They are not authorized to usurp or change the US Constitution. You're just going beyond absurd with that kind of comment.

The ACA was enacted by Congressional majority, by members of Congress elected by the people, Congress derives its authority from that source to enact all legislation, legislation which is presumed to be Constitutional until a court rules otherwise.

Congress does NOT "derive it's authority" from itself (as you just so absurdly stated), nor do they derive their power from people that elected them. Their powers, responsibilities, etc. are clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution. You're making statements so outrageous, you either have ZERO understanding of the US government and how it operates, or you're just trying to incite argument. Which one is it?

Of course Congress is authorized to make such decisions; in addition to its fundamental authority realized through the democratic process, Congress is also authorized by both expressed and implied powers to enact legislation determined appropriate to the National interest.

This statement is so utterly absurd, I'm just going to post my original statement which you were replying to with this inaccurate and absurd statement.

They simply are not Constitutionally empowered to make those decisions. They have 18 specific enumerated powers, and the cost of healthcare or the lack of those with insurance are NOT one of those powers.

 

[Listening]

If you don't like it, the mechanism for expressing that is political, there's no constitutional remedy for your concerns.

So, a later court could not correct Robert's mistake ?

Sorry....there is most definitely a constitutional remedy.

 

[dblack]

If you don't like it, the mechanism for expressing that is political, there's no constitutional remedy for your concerns.

So, a later court could not correct Robert's mistake ?

Sorry....there is most definitely a constitutional remedy.

Exactly. As much as some want to shut the book on this, it remains a Constitutional issue. That's what I think many people aren't getting - on both sides. It's not enough to repeal ACA. What needs to be "repealed" is Roberts awful decision. At this point though, it may take a constitutional amendment that limits both the taxation power and the commerce clause in concise ways, ways that court can't so easily reinterpret.

 

[P@triot]

And to hide behind tax is a nonsensical argument. How can you tax me on something for not taking part in it? Can you hit me with income tax if I'm not working? Can you hit me with sales tax if I'm not buying anything? Then how in the hell can you "tax" me for NOT purchasing healthcare insurance?!?! You know that doesn't hold up.

Would you consider it constitutional if the law were amended to impose an across the board tax increase on everyone, with a tax incentive for people who have health insurance (essentially letting them skip out on the tax hike)?

Not at all - because this is NOT a tax and the Obama Administration themselves screamed that for two years until the case came before the Supreme Court. Since even they knew this was 100% unconstitutional, they changed course and had to think of a Constitutional authority they actually had.

Furthermore, this is not a matter of "consider". This is black and white. This will become constitutional if and when the Constitution is amended to state that the federal government has the authority to force citizens to purchase a good or service.

 

[Wiseacre]

If you don't like it, the mechanism for expressing that is political, there's no constitutional remedy for your concerns.

So, a later court could not correct Robert's mistake ?

Sorry....there is most definitely a constitutional remedy.

Exactly. As much as some want to shut the book on this, it remains a Constitutional issue. That's what I think many people aren't getting - on both sides. It's not enough to repeal ACA. What needs to be "repealed" is Roberts awful decision. At this point though, it may take a constitutional amendment that limits both the taxation power and the commerce clause in concise ways, ways that court can't so easily reinterpret.

Not sure such an amendment would be constitutional either. Not that Congress would ever do it in the first place, hell will freeze over first. A future SCOTUS may change that decision, and should IMHO. But it won't be until after Roberts is gone, whenever that may be.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, a later court could not correct Robert's mistake ?

Sorry....there is most definitely a constitutional remedy.

Exactly. As much as some want to shut the book on this, it remains a Constitutional issue. That's what I think many people aren't getting - on both sides. It's not enough to repeal ACA. What needs to be "repealed" is Roberts awful decision. At this point though, it may take a constitutional amendment that limits both the taxation power and the commerce clause in concise ways, ways that court can't so easily reinterpret.

Not sure such an amendment would be constitutional either. Not that Congress would ever do it in the first place, hell will freeze over first. A future SCOTUS may change that decision, and should IMHO. But it won't be until after Roberts is gone, whenever that may be.

Amendments to the Constitutional are by their very nature ‘constitutional.’

The problem with such a subjective, partisan amendment would be its composition, as how it would actually limit Congress’ taxing and Commerce Clause authority without conflicting with other Articles of the Constitution and similar case law.

As for overturning the ACA ruling, that would require another lawsuit filed in Federal court challenging the constitutionality of an aspect of the ACA not already considered by the courts. Or if the original issues were re-argued, it would require at least two Federal courts of appeal to issue conflicting rulings, which is unlikely to happen given those courts would be bound by NFID v. Sebelius to find the ACA Constitutional.

Rather than wasting time, money, and effort attempting to amend the Constitution, or repealing the ACA, or challenging it again in the courts, republicans should work to replace the ACA with a single-payer program – Medicare for all – ensuring all Americans have health insurance.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Suppose Vermont were to pass an amendment to the Vermont constitution prohibiting all private ownership of guns. Would not conservatives argue that no state has the capacity to deny any American of a right clearly expressed in the Constitution?

I think it's funny that you'd mention Vermont banning guns, because Vermont has the highest rate of gun ownership AND least restrictive gun laws of any state in the country...

 

[Listening]

Exactly. As much as some want to shut the book on this, it remains a Constitutional issue. That's what I think many people aren't getting - on both sides. It's not enough to repeal ACA. What needs to be "repealed" is Roberts awful decision. At this point though, it may take a constitutional amendment that limits both the taxation power and the commerce clause in concise ways, ways that court can't so easily reinterpret.

Not sure such an amendment would be constitutional either. Not that Congress would ever do it in the first place, hell will freeze over first. A future SCOTUS may change that decision, and should IMHO. But it won't be until after Roberts is gone, whenever that may be.

Amendments to the Constitutional are by their very nature ‘constitutional.’

The problem with such a subjective, partisan amendment would be its composition, as how it would actually limit Congress’ taxing and Commerce Clause authority without conflicting with other Articles of the Constitution and similar case law.

As for overturning the ACA ruling, that would require another lawsuit filed in Federal court challenging the constitutionality of an aspect of the ACA not already considered by the courts. Or if the original issues were re-argued, it would require at least two Federal courts of appeal to issue conflicting rulings, which is unlikely to happen given those courts would be bound by NFID v. Sebelius to find the ACA Constitutional.

Rather than wasting time, money, and effort attempting to amend the Constitution, or repealing the ACA, or challenging it again in the courts, republicans should work to replace the ACA with a single-payer program – Medicare for all – ensuring all Americans have health insurance.

You bet.

We'll get right on that one.

 

[P@triot]

Rather than wasting time, money, and effort attempting to amend the Constitution...

I'm nearly speechless reading that post. Allow me to put into perspective the comment that was just made:

Rather than wasting time, money, and effort attempting to woo a liberal woman into bed, you should just rape them. I mean, why the hell waste the time, money, and effort, to get sex legally, just take it by force?

Rather than wasting time, money, and effort attempting to earn a job, just extort one by violence and threats from a business owner.

Rather than wasting time, money, and effort attempting to earn money, just commit armed robbery.

Rather than wasting time, money, and effort attempting to purchase a vehicle, just commit grand theft - auto.

 

[Listening]

Serious question for my liberal friends: why do you oppose Constitutional government. For instance, the Obamacare issue.

Governor Romney successfully and legally implemented Obamacare at the state level in Massachusetts. There were no challenges to the Supreme Court, no law suits, etc. If liberals want Obamacare, why don't they just do it at the state level?

Furthermore, if for some reason it's imperative this be done at the federal level (and I'd love to understand why), then why not properly amend the Constitution to reflect the new federal responsibility?

Either way would result in your ultimate goal, but it would be done legally and thus would avoid the monumental additional costs to this nightmare. Because of the way it was implemented, it's going to be repealed when Romney takes office and the whole thing will have been for not anyway.

I think your question should be brought forward.

Greenbeard simply says "Well if John Roberts says so...it is". Never mind the court is now a political machine...even the question mark in the case said it was unconstitutional.

How people like Ginsburg sleep at night, I'll never understand.

I keep asking the same thing...if so many people wanted Obamacare (or even single payer), there should be no problem getting a constitutional amendment.

Otherwise slug it out in the states. What's the matter with that. I'd love to have that conversation in Kansas. I mean that.

I think there are places for the state in health care.

Obamacare, in the end, turns out to be not much more than a support of Obama's desire to "spread the wealth around".

 

[asaratis]

Serious question for my liberal friends: why do you oppose Constitutional government. For instance, the Obamacare issue.

Governor Romney successfully and legally implemented Obamacare at the state level in Massachusetts. There were no challenges to the Supreme Court, no law suits, etc. If liberals want Obamacare, why don't they just do it at the state level?

Furthermore, if for some reason it's imperative this be done at the federal level (and I'd love to understand why), then why not properly amend the Constitution to reflect the new federal responsibility?

Either way would result in your ultimate goal, but it would be done legally and thus would avoid the monumental additional costs to this nightmare. Because of the way it was implemented, it's going to be repealed when Romney takes office and the whole thing will have been for not anyway.

Sorry to butt in...I am not one of your liberal friends (I am one of your conservative friends.) , but I cannot resist presenting my opinion on the current admin's ignoring of the United States Constitution. I think the answer is quite simple and requires only two stipulations:

1
Our founding fathers were collectively brilliant in wording the Constitution to prevent socialism from creeping into the republic we had fought so hard to establish.

2
Obama is a Marxist, has surrounded himself with others who push socialism, communism, Marxism, mother-government, anti-capitalist views.


These two facts require that Obama and company ignore the Constitution as much as possible and press for total control of our government including but not limited to the destruction of free enterprise and capitalism, the dissolving of freedom of speech, the disarming of the American public and the removal of freedom to worship as we please without interference from MOTHER GOVERNMENT when we offend the resident atheists!

They cannot follow the Constitution AND accomplish their goals....so they must ignore the Constitution.


Liberalism is a mental disorder! Plain and simple!!!!

 

[dblack]

Obamacare, in the end, turns out to be not much more than a support of Obama's desire to "spread the wealth around".

I actually think it is "much more". I suspect it will be seen as the Constitutional tipping point of our slide into full-blown corporatism. It's very ugly business and if we don't correct it quickly, they'll be no returning to a free society. It may already be too late.

 

[dblack]

Would you consider it constitutional if the law were amended to impose an across the board tax increase on everyone, with a tax incentive for people who have health insurance (essentially letting them skip out on the tax hike)?

Not at all - because this is NOT a tax and the Obama Administration themselves screamed that for two years until the case came before the Supreme Court. Since even they knew this was 100% unconstitutional, they changed course and had to think of a Constitutional authority they actually had.

I understand that. But I'm asking, if the law were re-written to honestly and forthrightly impose an across-the-board tax hike, with a equal and opposite 'tax incentive' for everyone who maintained a government approved health insurance policy, would that pass Constitutional muster in your view?

Furthermore, this is not a matter of "consider". This is black and white. This will become constitutional if and when the Constitution is amended to state that the federal government has the authority to force citizens to purchase a good or service.

Yes, but what I'm getting at, the reason I'm asking about your view on tax incentives, is that government already uses the tax code to force us to purchase goods and services. Every time government 'offers' a tax discount to some people for jumping through some hoop or another, they're effectively issuing a penalty to everyone who doesn't jump.

If it isn't clear in context, I'm radically opposed to using taxes in this way. The opportunity Roberts squandered - likely deliberately and consciously - was the chance to curtail this practice. Instead, by magically "converting" the mandate into a tax-hike/incentive and declaring it Constitutional on that basis, he reinforced the practice of using the tax code as a means of mandating behavior.

 

[Grandma]

Serious question for my liberal friends: why do you oppose Constitutional government.

I don't oppose genuine Constitutional government. However I, and everyone else that clearly sees the shills for what they are, don't want someone of limited Constitutional, legal, historical, and social education creating their own twisted interpretations of it to suit their radical agendas.