Health Care Reform is Not Unconstitutional

[QUOTE="Hemmaroids"][QUOTE="raynimrod"]

Well you never know, we could all be surprised.

It really bothers me that while the three branches of the US government should be completely separate, they clash when it comes to selecting the highest court in the country. It almost seems like a conflict of interest and fairness due to known political affiliations.

Danm_999

Yeah I think it does. And I agree with what you said above - it's probably not what the founders had in mind.

[QUOTE="ChaelaMcchubble"]

People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.

Hemmaroids

Quite simply for me, the government should not have anything to do what you want to do with your life.mr_poodles123

And what will be next? Mandating that everyone purchase a home to fight homelessness?

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"]Quite simply for me, the government should not have anything to do what you want to do with your life.kayoticdreamz

People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.

ChaelaMcchubble

And I would call them idiots.. You can not know whats going to happen in the future whether its a injury, disease or other health related issues... When they get hurt they not only bankrupt them selves, but the majority of the debt is paid by every body else through the system... No one can make a legitimate argument on why they should not have health insurance.. Its absurd that people think that its a good idea to not have it.. Especially when the bill helps people who have trouble affording it.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Person A: "I want to pass law x" Person B: "Law x is not constitutional" A: "Yes, it is" B: "No" A: "Fine, I want an amendment passing such that law x is constitutional" B: "Done" A: "Why didn't you just pass the law in the first place?" B: "Dunno" It's just a guideline of what should typically work for America. Just pass the good laws and ban the stupid ones and cut out the middle ground. There must be reasons why things are "unconstitutional", right? Whatever reasons those are, they should be given. You can't just say... it's unconstitutional so stuff you. And if reasons exist, why mask them?raynimrod

Huh?

In terms of hypotheticals

Person A: "Passes law X"

Person B: "The law is unconstitutional - I'm going to appeal to the courts"

Court A: "The law is unconstitutional"

Person A: "I appeal your decision"

Court B: "The law is constitutional"

Person B: "I appeal your decision" (and so on)

SCOTUS: "the law is unconstitutional"

Person A: "I want to ammend the constitution"

SCOTUS: "Then draft an ammendment, propose it, and ratify it."

Person A: *drafts ammendment and proposes it. A proposal requires either a two-thirds vote in both houses of congress, or a demand of two-thirds of the state legislatures. The proposal succeeds and must now be ratified by three-fourths of the states for the proposal to be amended into the Constitution.*

This is just a rough idea of what is required, but it sure as heck is more substantial than what you proposed... person A wants it, DONE!

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"]Quite simply for me, the government should not have anything to do what you want to do with your life.kayoticdreamz

Yes because the Healthcare Bill is infringing on our freedoms.. Not the Patriot Act or other such things... Its quite hilarious of this talk of government taking over everything began when Obama took office when in reality we have had legislation (some much worse imo) released years back before him..

And what will be next? Mandating that everyone purchase a home to fight homelessness?

YellowOneKinobi

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Hemmaroids"] It's called checks and balances.raynimrod

Yeah I think it does. And I agree with what you said above - it's probably not what the founders had in mind.

The Founders are not the end all of debate.. Jefferson believed we were going to be completely a rural agricultural society for instance.. That sure held up over time.. Furthermore the Founders were frightened to death of the average man and did not want to them to decide in who was in charge..

And what will be next? Mandating that everyone purchase a home to fight homelessness?

[QUOTE="Hemmaroids"]

[QUOTE="ChaelaMcchubble"]

People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.

Serraph105

Worse actually.. He will probably not bother with preventive care.. Have a heart attack or stroke.. Be rushed to the ER.. and cost a far fortune, one he will not be able to pay.. Will most likely file bankruptcy.. And a large amount of unpaid costs of services, man hours and resources will be put on every on else.

People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.

ChaelaMcchubble

And what will be next? Mandating that everyone purchase a home to fight homelessness?

[QUOTE="ChaelaMcchubble"]

People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.

swamptick

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"][QUOTE="Danm_999"] People with homes don't have to pay when someone becomes homeless. People with insurance do have to pay when someone who is uninsured becomes sick and uses a hospital.Danm_999

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] Who pays for homeless shelters? YellowOneKinobi

Because they don't cover ER costs.. The people without health care (hell even the ones WITH healthcare) ignore any form of preventive care, meaning that one visit to the ER on something serious will cost a fortune on all sides.. The fact that our health rankings are extremely low compared to other countries is great evidence on how much we fail at preventive care... Furthermore homeless shelters are a trivial matter, they no where come CLOSE to the costs of ER visits and what not..

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"][QUOTE="Danm_999"] In the USA? Usually churches, or non profit organisations like the Red Cross. The government contributes too, but it also already contributes to giving medical insurance to those who can't afford it.sSubZerOo

Because they don't cover ER costs.. The people without health care (hell even the ones WITH healthcare) ignore any form of preventive care, meaning that one visit to the ER on something serious will cost a fortune on all sides.. The fact that our health rankings are extremely low compared to other countries is great evidence on how much we fail at preventive care... Furthermore homeless shelters are a trivial matter, they no where come CLOSE to the costs of ER visits and what not..

My biggest complaint about this and so many other policies these days, it it really is never about what they say it is. This healthcare bill isn't about healthcare. It's about controlling a large part of the economy. The stimulus wasn't really about stimulating the economy, it was about the governemnt having a greater influence of private businesses in the automotive industry and the banking industry. I'm certainly no conspiracy theorist, but these days it is so rare that politicians on both sides of the aisle even TRY to tell the truth.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] I completely agree that costs incurred by homelessness is a drop in the bucket compared to health care. My concern is the precedent set by the mandate. They are basically saying, "It's for the greater good so you must buy." That logic or line of thought can be used almost without end. "For the greater good you MUST buy an electric car." "For the greater good you MUST eat low-fat food." "For the greater good you MUST......" There would be no end. Also, when the fine a person pays for NOT having insurance is so much less that buying insurance, many people will likely STILL not buy insurance until they are virtually on their way to the emergency room. How much will THAT cost all of us who do things the right way?Danm_999

My biggest complaint about this and so many other policies these days, it it really is never about what they say it is. This healthcare bill isn't about healthcare. It's about controlling a large part of the economy. The stimulus wasn't really about stimulating the economy, it was about the governemnt having a greater influence of private businesses in the automotive industry and the banking industry. I'm certainly no conspiracy theorist, but these days it is so rare that politicians on both sides of the aisle even TRY to tell the truth.

YellowOneKinobi

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

The Congress was never granted power by the constituion to regulate the commerce of citizens. And nowhere in the constituion does the word regulate equate to mandate.

The commerce clause allows the regulation of interstate commerce and by supreme court precedent this has been expanded to include all commerce, since all commerce influences interstate commerce.

Mandating something is a form of regulation. You're mandated to drive on the right side of the road, that's a regulation.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] I completely agree that costs incurred by homelessness is a drop in the bucket compared to health care. My concern is the precedent set by the mandate. They are basically saying, "It's for the greater good so you must buy." That logic or line of thought can be used almost without end. "For the greater good you MUST buy an electric car." "For the greater good you MUST eat low-fat food." "For the greater good you MUST......" There would be no end. Also, when the fine a person pays for NOT having insurance is so much less that buying insurance, many people will likely STILL not buy insurance until they are virtually on their way to the emergency room. How much will THAT cost all of us who do things the right way?YellowOneKinobi

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"][QUOTE="Danm_999"] This is the classic slippery slope fallacy though. A good idea is not a bad idea because its reasoning may be perverted down the line. You stop the bad ideas, you do not stop the good ideas because they may inspire bad ideas.Danm_999

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] "Government contributes too." In other words, people who aren't homeless incurr costs by people who are homeless. And your right, there is already medicaid/medicare, child health plus, and also many affordable clinics geared towards those with very little money. So why have this mandate? To put it another way, as soon as the mandate kicks in, you will have people that go to bed one night law abiding citizens, then wake up the next morning as scofflaws.YellowOneKinobi

Because they don't cover ER costs.. The people without health care (hell even the ones WITH healthcare) ignore any form of preventive care, meaning that one visit to the ER on something serious will cost a fortune on all sides.. The fact that our health rankings are extremely low compared to other countries is great evidence on how much we fail at preventive care... Furthermore homeless shelters are a trivial matter, they no where come CLOSE to the costs of ER visits and what not..

... They are mandated by law to get it, they can't do it on the way there.. Yet again its still cheaper than the other way, and it will open people up to preventive care.. Its more along the lines of two things.. The people who don't get it, couldn't afford it.. Now they have access to a affordable plan (whether it was because of preexisting conditions or did not have the money to pay the average) or they are stupid.. I am sorry but any one who can afford health care but won't get it, are idiots.. There is absolutely no legitimate reason a person can make to not get health care if they can afford it.. I am all for ending this stupidity.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] I understand what you're saying, but I never thought this type of overhaul was a good idea to begine with. There were a lot of things wrong with the system, but there was no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as the saying goes. YellowOneKinobi

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Because they don't cover ER costs.. The people without health care (hell even the ones WITH healthcare) ignore any form of preventive care, meaning that one visit to the ER on something serious will cost a fortune on all sides.. The fact that our health rankings are extremely low compared to other countries is great evidence on how much we fail at preventive care... Furthermore homeless shelters are a trivial matter, they no where come CLOSE to the costs of ER visits and what not..

... They are mandated by law to get it, they can't do it on the way there.. Yet again its still cheaper than the other way, and it will open people up to preventive care.. Its more along the lines of two things.. The people who don't get it, couldn't afford it.. Now they have access to a affordable plan (whether it was because of preexisting conditions or did not have the money to pay the average) or they are stupid.. I am sorry but any one who can afford health care but won't get it, are idiots.. There is absolutely no legitimate reason a person can make to not get health care if they can afford it.. I am all for ending this stupidity.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] I completely agree that costs incurred by homelessness is a drop in the bucket compared to health care. My concern is the precedent set by the mandate. They are basically saying, "It's for the greater good so you must buy." That logic or line of thought can be used almost without end. "For the greater good you MUST buy an electric car." "For the greater good you MUST eat low-fat food." "For the greater good you MUST......" There would be no end. Also, when the fine a person pays for NOT having insurance is so much less that buying insurance, many people will likely STILL not buy insurance until they are virtually on their way to the emergency room. How much will THAT cost all of us who do things the right way?YellowOneKinobi

... They are mandated by law to get it, they can't do it on the way there.. Yet again its still cheaper than the other way, and it will open people up to preventive care.. Its more along the lines of two things.. The people who don't get it, couldn't afford it.. Now they have access to a affordable plan (whether it was because of preexisting conditions or did not have the money to pay the average) or they are stupid.. I am sorry but any one who can afford health care but won't get it, are idiots.. There is absolutely no legitimate reason a person can make to not get health care if they can afford it.. I am all for ending this stupidity.

What your pointing out is something that occurs in every plan, law etc etc ever put forward.. There is always going to be people out there that take advantage of it to some extent.. Its a fact of life, its whether the benefits outweigh the negatives..

What your pointing out is something that occurs in every plan, law etc etc ever put forward.. There is always going to be people out there that take advantage of it to some extent.. Its a fact of life, its whether the benefits outweigh the negatives..

I know. It's true that there are always those who want to take advantage. But like other have pointed out, the way this entire thing was done. It was being sold to us as a way to get insurance for the uninsured. The problem was that many, if not most, of those without insurance didn't bother to get it. And now they STILL wont bother to get it.

YellowOneKinobi

What your pointing out is something that occurs in every plan, law etc etc ever put forward.. There is always going to be people out there that take advantage of it to some extent.. Its a fact of life, its whether the benefits outweigh the negatives..

I know. It's true that there are always those who want to take advantage. But like other have pointed out, the way this entire thing was done. It was being sold to us as a way to get insurance for the uninsured. The problem was that many, if not most, of those without insurance didn't bother to get it. And now they STILL wont bother to get it.

What are you talking about? They are mandated by law to get it.. You have to have it now... If you can't afford it the government can help you with it.. IN the end what this means is this.. The people who can't afford it will still pay something into it.. They will hopefully go to check ups which will be far more effective and cheaper than ER visits when things get the absolute worse.. The morons are now forced to get it and pay it.. The fact of the matter is this.. The cheapest way to lower costs is to try to open up monthly check ups to every one.. Preventive care, thus reducing costs of ER visits and catching things before they become serious..

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

What your pointing out is something that occurs in every plan, law etc etc ever put forward.. There is always going to be people out there that take advantage of it to some extent.. Its a fact of life, its whether the benefits outweigh the negatives..

I know. It's true that there are always those who want to take advantage. But like other have pointed out, the way this entire thing was done. It was being sold to us as a way to get insurance for the uninsured. The problem was that many, if not most, of those without insurance didn't bother to get it. And now they STILL wont bother to get it.

What are you talking about? They are mandated by law to get it.. You have to have it now... If you can't afford it the government can help you with it.. IN the end what this means is this.. The people who can't afford it will still pay something into it.. They will hopefully go to check ups which will be far more effective and cheaper than ER visits when things get the absolute worse.. The morons are now forced to get it and pay it.. The fact of the matter is this.. The cheapest way to lower costs is to try to open up monthly check ups to every one.. Preventive care, thus reducing costs of ER visits and catching things before they become serious..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

What your pointing out is something that occurs in every plan, law etc etc ever put forward.. There is always going to be people out there that take advantage of it to some extent.. Its a fact of life, its whether the benefits outweigh the negatives..

I know. It's true that there are always those who want to take advantage. But like other have pointed out, the way this entire thing was done. It was being sold to us as a way to get insurance for the uninsured. The problem was that many, if not most, of those without insurance didn't bother to get it. And now they STILL wont bother to get it.

YellowOneKinobi

What are you talking about? They are mandated by law to get it.. You have to have it now... If you can't afford it the government can help you with it.. IN the end what this means is this.. The people who can't afford it will still pay something into it.. They will hopefully go to check ups which will be far more effective and cheaper than ER visits when things get the absolute worse.. The morons are now forced to get it and pay it.. The fact of the matter is this.. The cheapest way to lower costs is to try to open up monthly check ups to every one.. Preventive care, thus reducing costs of ER visits and catching things before they become serious..

You seriously think the bill was designed to make the fine cost less than the actual health insurance? It will cost MORE than the actual health insurance.. It wouldn't be much incentive to do anything otherwise.

That wasn't exacly written by a neutral source..

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

What are you talking about? They are mandated by law to get it.. You have to have it now... If you can't afford it the government can help you with it.. IN the end what this means is this.. The people who can't afford it will still pay something into it.. They will hopefully go to check ups which will be far more effective and cheaper than ER visits when things get the absolute worse.. The morons are now forced to get it and pay it.. The fact of the matter is this.. The cheapest way to lower costs is to try to open up monthly check ups to every one.. Preventive care, thus reducing costs of ER visits and catching things before they become serious..

You seriously think the bill was designed to make the fine cost less than the actual health insurance? It will cost MORE than the actual health insurance.. It wouldn't be much incentive to do anything otherwise.

What would you call a lump-sum tax then?

chessmaster1989

I would love for free health care but I just dont think it would work in the US. Our country is too big, we dont have the money for it. If we did some how get it to work the quality of our hospitals and our doctors would go way down because they wouldn't get nearly as much money. Being a doctor is probably the highest stressed job in existance so if they arent getting paid really well for it absolutely no one is going to want to do it.

Our heathcare system does need reform but just making it free or w/e isn't the answer. Our taxes would go through the roof just to get lower quality healthcare which most people already have anyway. And the middle class americans who do pay their taxes are the ones who are going to get screwed because the ones benefiting from it probably pay barely any taxes or dont at all.

My biggest complaint about this and so many other policies these days, it it really is never about what they say it is. This healthcare bill isn't about healthcare. It's about controlling a large part of the economy. The stimulus wasn't really about stimulating the economy, it was about the governemnt having a greater influence of private businesses in the automotive industry and the banking industry. I'm certainly no conspiracy theorist, but these days it is so rare that politicians on both sides of the aisle even TRY to tell the truth.

YellowOneKinobi

I think you are mixing up TARP with theAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. TARP was for propping up financial institutions and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 or Stimulus plan was for creating jobs in certain sectors of the economy and helped provide for unemployment benefits and other social needs.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

My biggest complaint about this and so many other policies these days, it it really is never about what they say it is. This healthcare bill isn't about healthcare. It's about controlling a large part of the economy. The stimulus wasn't really about stimulating the economy, it was about the governemnt having a greater influence of private businesses in the automotive industry and the banking industry. I'm certainly no conspiracy theorist, but these days it is so rare that politicians on both sides of the aisle even TRY to tell the truth.

I think you are mixing up TARP with theAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. TARP was for propping up financial institutions and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 or Stimulus plan was for creating jobs in certain sectors of the economy and helped provide for unemployment benefits and other social needs.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

My biggest complaint about this and so many other policies these days, it it really is never about what they say it is. This healthcare bill isn't about healthcare. It's about controlling a large part of the economy. The stimulus wasn't really about stimulating the economy, it was about the governemnt having a greater influence of private businesses in the automotive industry and the banking industry. I'm certainly no conspiracy theorist, but these days it is so rare that politicians on both sides of the aisle even TRY to tell the truth.

YellowOneKinobi

I think you are mixing up TARP with theAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. TARP was for propping up financial institutions and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 or Stimulus plan was for creating jobs in certain sectors of the economy and helped provide for unemployment benefits and other social needs.

The stimulus worked to some extent. There are road projects that are getting done, but it is more than roads that need to be repaired such as sewer systems, drainage systems, water systems. Water and sewer piping is getting bad everywhere and I have yet to see many wholesale repairs in those areas. In that respect, yes, the stimulus failed.

As far as the banking industry, I would have let them fail as they didn't learn from the previous bailouts during the savings and loans scandal in the 80s.

The stimulus worked to some extent. There are road projects that are getting done, but it is more than roads that need to be repaired such as sewer systems, drainage systems, water systems. Water and sewer piping is getting bad everywhere and I have yet to see many wholesale repairs in those areas. In that respect, yes, the stimulus failed.

As far as the banking industry, I would have let them fail as they didn't learn from the previous bailouts during the savings and loans scandal in the 80s.

[QUOTE="ChaelaMcchubble"]

People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.

sSubZerOo

And I would call them idiots.. You can not know whats going to happen in the future whether its a injury, disease or other health related issues... When they get hurt they not only bankrupt them selves, but the majority of the debt is paid by every body else through the system... No one can make a legitimate argument on why they should not have health insurance.. Its absurd that people think that its a good idea to not have it.. Especially when the bill helps people who have trouble affording it.

It is simply not monetarily advantageous for some people to purchase health insurance. And for that reason alone, it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to not desire to be forced to purchase into a system which they will most likely not benefit from. But feel free to keep going with your self-righteous rant. Convincing yourself that those supporting the other side of an argument are inherently idiots is quite comforting, I'm sure.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

The Congress was never granted power by the constituion to regulate the commerce of citizens. And nowhere in the constituion does the word regulate equate to mandate.

superfluidity

The commerce clause allows the regulation of interstate commerce and by supreme court precedent this has been expanded to include all commerce, since all commerce influences interstate commerce.

Mandating something is a form of regulation. You're mandated to drive on the right side of the road, that's a regulation.

That's such an asinine analogy.

What is bs is that congress gets its own private plan. Why don't they have medicare like the rest of the people with government provided insurance?

What is bs is that congress gets its own private plan. Why don't they have medicare like the rest of the people with government provided insurance?

sonicare