I have doubts that they'll find it unconstitutional, but if nothing else, they can just consider it another social service program and pay for it with a mandatory flat tax increase.
It's not going to be repealed. Amended, maybe.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obamacare unconstitutional
Obamacare unconstitutional Follow
I'm sure this argument has been beat to death, but we're required by law to carry insurance on our cars, and fined if we don't. Isn't that on the same level of unconstitutionality? Why is property held at a higher regard than human life?
Guenny wrote:
I'm sure this argument has been beat to death, but we're required by law to carry insurance on our cars, and fined if we don't. Isn't that on the same level of unconstitutionality? Why is property held at a higher regard than human life?
The argument for that is that one is not required to own a vehicle, therefore you do have a choice in whether or not you purchase said insurance. With health insurance, there's no choice at all.
The counterargument for its constitutionality under the Commerce Clause (and Necessary & Proper Clause) is that every American interacts with the health care system regardless of whether you have private insurance, pay cash for everything, Medicaid, VA benefits, visit a public clinic or just go to hospitals and neglect to pay your bills. You can't even just confidently say "I'll just never go to the doctor" -- if you're in a car accident or you drop in the street, your *** is going to wind up in an emergency room courtesy of the local police/fire/paramedics. There is no option to just "not have a car" when it comes to health care. Because it is a system where everyone is affected by it and everyone is affecting it via their choices/ability to pay, it falls under the government's scope of regulation.
The big question is whether this law goes beyond the government's powers under the Commerce Clause. At the risk of coming off the reservation, there are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of the debate. There are lawyers and scholars out there on both sides who know infinitely more about constitutional law than everyone on the forum combined who think it does and who think it doesn't. I personally side on thinking it's constitutional.
The big question is whether this law goes beyond the government's powers under the Commerce Clause. At the risk of coming off the reservation, there are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of the debate. There are lawyers and scholars out there on both sides who know infinitely more about constitutional law than everyone on the forum combined who think it does and who think it doesn't. I personally side on thinking it's constitutional.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,
No they don't. Just saying so doesn't make it true. Most people do not have ongoing interactions with the health care system.
Quote:
is that every American interacts with the health care system regardless
No they don't. Just saying so doesn't make it true. Most people do not have ongoing interactions with the health care system.
No one you know goes to the doctor?
Your community is magically germ-free and disease free?
You're parents, siblings, boyfriend have never nor ever will go to a doctor, dentist, chiropractor, family planner, psychologist or plastic surgeon?
=
Edited, Feb 1st 2011 6:57pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
varusword75 wrote:
No they don't. Just saying so doesn't make it true.
No, a basic understanding of reality is what makes it true.
Quote:
Most people do not have ongoing interactions with the health care system.
That's not what I said.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
varusword75 wrote:
But no I don't ever go to the doctor and most people I know that aren't over 50 don't either.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
varusword75 wrote:
Elinda,
I've been to the doctor twice in my life. Both times for a few stitches and both times I paid for out of pocket. I do have insurance so if something goes bad, like cancer, I don't have to worry about paying the doctor.
But no I don't ever go to the doctor and most people I know that aren't over 50 don't either.
Quote:
What do you mean? You never go to the doctor?
I've been to the doctor twice in my life. Both times for a few stitches and both times I paid for out of pocket. I do have insurance so if something goes bad, like cancer, I don't have to worry about paying the doctor.
But no I don't ever go to the doctor and most people I know that aren't over 50 don't either.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
varusword75 wrote:
Elinda,
I've been to the doctor twice in my life. Both times for a few stitches and both times I paid for out of pocket. I do have insurance so if something goes bad, like cancer, I don't have to worry about paying the doctor.
But no I don't ever go to the doctor and most people I know that aren't over 50 don't either.
Quote:
What do you mean? You never go to the doctor?
I've been to the doctor twice in my life. Both times for a few stitches and both times I paid for out of pocket. I do have insurance so if something goes bad, like cancer, I don't have to worry about paying the doctor.
But no I don't ever go to the doctor and most people I know that aren't over 50 don't either.
I'm amazed you never got vaccinated by trained medical personnel. Or, being an insurance salesman, never took advantage of the free (well, $15 co-pay) annual checkups most basic health insurance covers. Never had a blood test? Risky with all teh sex you supposed have. After all, 3/4 of college students will contract HPV, and that stuff isn't stopped by condoms.
I don't go to the doctor regularly, but I got vaccinated as a kid, try to get a yearly check-up, and get blood work if I have new sex partners.
So varus, do you enjoy spending 70BIL /year you don't have to. I thought you didn't like pork?
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
You don't really care about the process. You care only that the process results in something you do care about.
You completely misunderstood me but that's okay. I'm more interested in the mechanics of politics. Obviously I have things I'd like to see happen or not happen. But ultimately, it's the machine that fascinates me more than insisting that if you don't interpret the constitution the same way I do, you've failed in upholding the ideals of the nation or whatever claptrap.
And yet, you only make this claim when what you want violates someone else's moral viewpoint and you don't want to have the discussion. When we're discussing gay marriage, or DADT, or prayer in school, or any of the social issues you care about you're all about the objective and how important it is, with nary a mention of the process. I've never seen you pass up an opportunity to argue morals when it's your morals involved. When it's poor people not getting their welfare checks, or women not being able to abort their pregnancies, or minorities not making the same money, you're all about the issue.
So forgive me if I don't buy your claim to care mostly about the "mechanics of politics" in this case. I'll stick with "Joph knows he's wrong here, and doesn't want to argue a losing position". You're free to delude yourself about your own motivations though. :)
Quote:
Quote:
Our founding fathers didn't write the constitution to tell us what the government should do with its power. There isn't a single word in their about policy or direction. They wrote it entirely to tell us "how" it should use power. Specifically, it tells us how the government should not use that power.
As I said, you're more interested in rhetoric. It was polite of you to illustrate it so clearly.
If by rhetoric you mean "well spoken/written" then I'll take it as a compliment. If you mean rhetoric as "empty words", then I'm a bit confused how you think the document this nation was founded on is just empty words. If they don't matter, then what does? You seem to care about the outcome of the supreme court, but why would you if you don't apparently think that the words in the constitution really matter anyway?
Seems strange. To me, rhetoric is arguing for a health care bill because "40 Million people don't have health insurance!!!" and "we need to think of our children!". That's rhetoric. Talking about the principles written into the constitution is *not* just rhetoric.
Quote:
Quote:
And if it is, then that's kinda strange, given that the positions you hold are overwhelmingly argued on pure emotional appeal.
Really? I'm not the one insinuating that if you don't see things the same way I do, you're failing our poor Founding Fathers.
You're kidding, right? The bulk of the political agenda you support rests completely on emotional appeals. Feed the hungry! House the homeless! This is unfair! That is unfair! Let's make things fair!!!
Oh. And don't look at *how* we make things fair. Just focus on the need to do "something".
My side looks at the effects of those actions Joph. We oppose those things, not because we hate the poor, or the hungry, or minorities, or women, but because we disagree with the methods your side proposes to address those things. Methods like providing health care to more people, by creating a mandate that everyone must purchase health care, which represents a massive stretch of government intrusion into our lives. Your side gets so caught up in the emotional importance of what they are doing, they don't stop to consider the side effects.
This is one of them. A mandate like the one contained in this bill is an assault on personal liberty. It's not emotional to point this out. It's a rational analysis of the effect of something that runs counter to the strong emotions used to push it through. The people want "health care now!". They act irrationally in the pursuit of it, and we all lose a little bit of liberty (or a lot in this case). The conservatives may become emotional about their position, but their position is not based on emotion. It's based on rationalism.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Kachi wrote:
I have doubts that they'll find it unconstitutional, but if nothing else, they can just consider it another social service program and pay for it with a mandatory flat tax increase.
But they didn't. And had they attempted to, it would have been rejected as socialism (and might still fail constitutional muster anyway). Also, the only way that really gets around the issue is if the government is the provider, not private industry. And that's a step well farther than the US population is willing to go.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
you're all about the objective and how important it is, with nary a mention of the process.
Was this a joke? Seriously? I've spend more electrons on talking about the political process of gay marriage, health care, yadda yadda than probably everyone else on this forum combined.
Quote:
You're free to delude yourself about your own motivations though.
Oh no. I am so shamed and will chan--- wait, no I'm not. As I said, I assume the readers here can form their own opinions.
Quote:
You're kidding, right? The bulk of the political agenda you support rests completely on emotional appeals. Feed the hungry! House the homeless! This is unfair! That is unfair! Let's make things fair!!!
Uh huh. Incredibly simplistic but at least you're not surprising anyone. Good job.
Amusing how quickly your real motives come out when you're just "honestly curious" about something :)
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Also, the only way that really gets around the issue is if the government is the provider, not private industry. And that's a step well farther than the US population is willing to go.
I think you're making that generalization a bit too general.
varusword75 wrote:
Sure it is.
Heh.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
The counterargument for its constitutionality under the Commerce Clause (and Necessary & Proper Clause) is that every American interacts with the health care system regardless of whether you have private insurance, pay cash for everything, Medicaid, VA benefits, visit a public clinic or just go to hospitals and neglect to pay your bills. You can't even just confidently say "I'll just never go to the doctor" -- if you're in a car accident or you drop in the street, your *** is going to wind up in an emergency room courtesy of the local police/fire/paramedics. There is no option to just "not have a car" when it comes to health care. Because it is a system where everyone is affected by it and everyone is affecting it via their choices/ability to pay, it falls under the government's scope of regulation.
The problem I have with this is that it assumes that there must be a "health care system" which is controlled by the government. IMO, that's a false premise and is based on previous extensions of government into industry. If we all received our medical care from private doctors and paid out of pocket, there would be no such support for the idea of a mandate. Thus, the argument itself ends out as the tail end of a slippery slope. Because we decided that government must ultimately pay for people's health if they can't pay for it themselves, then it's ok for government to mandate payment into that system regardless of whether or not someone would abuse it.
The secondary question then becomes: If we can say that in this case, why not anything else? Can't government decide that since we all must eat, that we all must interact with the "food system" of the US and then mandate what we must eat and how much it must cost and mandate that we must pay for "food insurance" so as to ensure that everyone has food? The same argument can be made for anything we interact with.
I guess the big problem for me (and for most conservatives) is that if we fail to clearly define the role of government versus the role of private industry, we ultimately end out with government controlling the areas it inserts itself into. This is just an example of that made real.
Quote:
The big question is whether this law goes beyond the government's powers under the Commerce Clause. At the risk of coming off the reservation, there are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of the debate. There are lawyers and scholars out there on both sides who know infinitely more about constitutional law than everyone on the forum combined who think it does and who think it doesn't. I personally side on thinking it's constitutional.
Regardless of where you fall on this, there is no doubt that this is uncharted territory though. Never before has the government mandated the purchase of something in this manner. The very universality of it is one of the reasons it shouldn't be allowed btw. If only people who own cars have to buy car insurance, then there's a choice involved. If only farmers have to grow X amount of wheat, then there's a choice involved and a limit to the intrusion. If *everyone* has to buy health insurance, as a condition of being a living person, then there isn't really a choice. There's no way to opt out.
That's well beyond any allowance ever made under the commerce clause before. I find it incredibly unlikely that the SCOTUS would allow it in this case. It would set a ridiculous and unlimited precedent. The justices are not going to fail to see that when making their ruling.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
The justices are not going to fail to see that when making their ruling.
Groovy. I've read more opinions by legal analysts where they can see a path to Roberts accepting the mandate than paths where Ginsberg (to grab a name) objects to it. Ultimately though it's wait and see and will most likely be a 5-4 split either way.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
The secondary question then becomes: If we can say that in this case, why not anything else? Can't government decide that since we all must eat, that we all must interact with the "food system" of the US and then mandate what we must eat and how much it must cost and mandate that we must pay for "food insurance" so as to ensure that everyone has food? The same argument can be made for anything we interact with.
Edited, Feb 1st 2011 5:12pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
varusword75 wrote:
Gbaji,
This is exactly what liberals like Jophed don't want brought up and discussed. They want to be able to control what each person eats and drinks. That's their dirty little secret.
Quote:
If we can say that in this case, why not anything else? Can't government decide that since we all must eat, that we all must interact with the "food system" of the US and then mandate what we must eat and how much it must cost and mandate that we must pay for "food insurance" so as to ensure that everyone has food? The same argument can be made for anything we interact with.
This is exactly what liberals like Jophed don't want brought up and discussed. They want to be able to control what each person eats and drinks. That's their dirty little secret.
I should say that dirty secret has been know for quite some time food stamps wring a bell?
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Today's amusing bit of irony: Five legislators from S. Dakota introduced a state bill requiring all citizens to purchase a gun and ammunition. Their intent was to set up a showdown resulting in a court decision that the government can't force citizens to do that.
Jack Balkin points out a bit of 1792 legislation:
Jack Balkin points out a bit of 1792 legislation:
The early members of Congress wrote:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia [...] That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service...
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 217
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (217)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obamacare unconstitutional
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC