Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

Where does the constitution grant you unlimited free choice?

The current form of the constitution allows conscription in wartime. It is legal for your government to pass a bill forcing you to serve in the army against your will. You seem to think you have this magical thing called unlimited and total freedom as a constitutional right. That isn't the case at all.

Back in reality, the constitution does not make it illegal for the government to force you to buy something, force you to pay taxes, force you to abide by laws, or force you to serve in the military. It also doesn't make it illegal for you to have to pay specific taxes on things like alcohol or tobacco. All sorts of other bonuses and penalties are applied to taxes. Paying a penalty for refusing to get coverage is not any different than paying a penalty/tax or receiving a bonus for any of the other things calculated in income tax.

The trouble with free choice is this: if I choose not to buy healthcare, and fritter my money away on trivialities, then should I became seriously ill, the state would not leave me to die, as it should.

How many Americans "choose" not to have healthcare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

I think the idea that health care is not a right is unique to those countries without universal medicare. Ask almost any Canadian including the vast majority of Conservatives up here and they see it as a right. This is the same in Britain and France where public systems are prevalent.

---

Those in the US are granted an inalienable right to life. That being the case no one in the US can, even pre-Obama, can be denied medical care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

If the majority of Americans do not see public health care as a basic right then public health-care will likely fail. The current senate bill is so weak I think they'd be better off blocking it and trying again.

---

Public health care should fail. The public health care bills in the US are not about health care. They are an unconstitutional intrusion into the private life. The current Senate bill is not the least about health care it is about control, and control only! It is also something the proponents are lying about, some because they do not know and others to hide things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

As for drug costs in Canada its not that the prices are regulated, its that the government can negotiate for the medications in massive quantities. If every American in the state of California was on the same drug plan and the insurance company running said plan went to the pharmaceutical companies to get a bulk rate negotiated on medications, prices would fall dramatically. The American system is made up of so many tiny pieces, none of which could get good deals and as such costs skyrocket.

---

There are 1700 insurance providers in the US. Yet they can not all compete against each other. How is adding one company supposed to provide competition, especially when that new company has unfair advantages? Then there is the requirement that all "qualified" providers be in the Exchange. The Government will tell them what they must cover and how much they can charge for their product. This does nothing to control costs.

My question for conservatives in the states is:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

How does it make sense to tax the middle class so heavily they can't pay for health care and then leave them without medical care when they get sick in order to pay for things like Corporate Bailouts (Auto, Banking, etc..) and Foreign Wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc..)?

---

That is why the people actually do want reform, but reform that accomplishes something. There are all kinds of things that can be done to make changes that will lower health costs. yet none of them are being considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

Social Security, Welfare and other such programs are a tiny amount of spending compared to wars and bailouts.

---

The Social programs in the budget take up by far the largets part of the budget. Wars and bailouts are not part of the budget process!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

The constitution doesn't mention health care at all. This doesn't make dealing with health care unconstitutional. Something is unconstitutional if it is done in violation of the constitution.

---

You obviously do not understand the Constitution. The very fact that the Constitution does not mention health care is prima facie evidence that the Government involvement in this so called health care issue is unconstitutional!

As for the attempt to prove your point about Government expentitures, your numbers are plainly wrong-headed. I, however, do not have enough time to formulate the facts for you presently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steel1sh

It is unconstitutional for the government to REQUIRE me to purchase something from a private party. THAT is written into the current bill.

---

The Constitution does not grant the Government an enumerated right over health care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

The figures in the article don't include appropriations, however the total appropriations are included in the national debt, and can in fact be estimated by calculating the change in debt (actual) and subtracting the change in debt (budgetary).

---

Read that again and see if it makes sense to you?

The only thing that passed this mish-mash of a bill was bribery! Bribery that the leader fo the Senate praises! That means the Senate has made a liar of the President who promised that there would be "no more business as usual in Washington"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steel1sh

We have a Congress pushing hard to get this thing past cloture by Christmas. In fact, they plan to vote on it tomorrow morning.

To get this thing to a cloture, Bill Nelson has been offered exemptions on Medicare/Medicaid cutbacks for three counties in Florida. HUH? I thought there WEREN'T going to be any cutbacks at all! I guess bribery (again) is what is needed to get bills passed, rather than Congressmen working on what their constituents want.

As for unconstitutional; by FORCING me (or anyone else) to purchase healthcare, they are taking away free choice.

---

The Government being able to "draft" for a military force is not in the Constitution. It is supported, however, yet that does not mitigate free choice. The Government can not "force" you to serve in the Army against your will. As a citizen you still have a choice.

The Government can not "force" purchase of anything, taxes are "voluntary", laws are not part of the Constitution, and we already discussed the military.

Other things "calculated in income taxes"? Just what do you think those things are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

Where does the constitution grant you unlimited free choice?

The current form of the constitution allows conscription in wartime. It is legal for your government to pass a bill forcing you to serve in the army against your will. You seem to think you have this magical thing called unlimited and total freedom as a constitutional right. That isn't the case at all.

Back in reality, the constitution does not make it illegal for the government to force you to buy something, force you to pay taxes, force you to abide by laws, or force you to serve in the military. It also doesn't make it illegal for you to have to pay specific taxes on things like alcohol or tobacco. All sorts of other bonuses and penalties are applied to taxes. Paying a penalty for refusing to get coverage is not any different than paying a penalty/tax or receiving a bonus for any of the other things calculated in income tax.

---

Several millions of American choose to not have health insurance. Yet the Liberal Nobility are counting those same people as victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

The trouble with free choice is this: if I choose not to buy healthcare, and fritter my money away on trivialities, then should I became seriously ill, the state would not leave me to die, as it should.

How many Americans "choose" not to have healthcare?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

Where does the constitution grant you unlimited free choice?

The current form of the constitution allows conscription in wartime. It is legal for your government to pass a bill forcing you to serve in the army against your will. You seem to think you have this magical thing called unlimited and total freedom as a constitutional right. That isn't the case at all.

Back in reality, the constitution does not make it illegal for the government to force you to buy something, force you to pay taxes, force you to abide by laws, or force you to serve in the military. It also doesn't make it illegal for you to have to pay specific taxes on things like alcohol or tobacco. All sorts of other bonuses and penalties are applied to taxes. Paying a penalty for refusing to get coverage is not any different than paying a penalty/tax or receiving a bonus for any of the other things calculated in income tax.

---

A draft that goes into effect for a specific condition of the country and isn't done for perpetuity is NOT the same as forcing a citizen to purchase something they don't want. Besides, not only do you pay a penalty, you also are no longer considered a legal citizen. So in that respect it is NOTHING like a tax. I already have health care that I purchased on my own. I like it. I want to keep it, however, there are many who do not have health care and don't want to spend their money on it. That is their choice. They earned the money, they get to choose how to spend it. If this bill passes, the government will regulate the health industry and drive costs beyond what any private insurance company can cover, given what most citizens can afford to pay in premiums. Then the government will step in as "savior" with a single payer system. Heh.

Personally, I cannot trust the government with what they feel will be an adequate healthcare system. They screw up too much for me to feel comfortable. Medicaid and Medicare already have panels restricting care...the Post Office is in shambles (I know, I work there), TARP is a joke, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are basically holes that the government keeps pouring money into.

As to free choice...isn't that what Roe v Wade is all about? The choice to do as you wish with your own body? So now we're going to make a mockery of that with this bill?

1. The constitution doesn't mention the FBI therefore the FBI is unconstitutional.

2. The constitution doesn't mention the CIA therefore the CIA is unconstitutional etc..

This is clearly wrong!

Something is unconstitutional only if there is something in the constitution that expressly forbids it, or something in the constitution guaranteeing the opposite. The mere fact that something is not mentioned in the constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional.

If you prefer from dictionary.com under legal dictionary:

contrary to or failing to comply with a constitution; especially : violative of a person's rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution

This means if you are claiming the health law is unconstitutional you need to point out the specific part of the constitution that is violated. It is you who do not understand the constitution if you think that the government has no authority at all over anything that is neither permitted nor forbidden by the Constitution.

As for no longer considered a legal citizen, can you provide a source on this or is it another unsubstantiated claim from fox news?

As for the messed up budgetary system in the states, you can replace all instances of my use of the word budget, by "federal government total expenditure including appropriations" (now isn't that a ridiculously long mouthful). The fact that the government moves items outside the budget doesn't mean the expenses mysteriously vanish, there is a reason that that debt skyrockets far faster than the budgetary deficit.

As for my statement you claim is non-sensical.

Fact: All expenses in the US are either contained in the budget or are special appropriations.

Fact: The national debt grew from 5.1 Billion to 10.8 billion over 1 fiscal year.

Fact: The budgetary deficit for said fiscal year was X.

Conclusion: Special appropriations were 10.8 Billion - 5.1 Billion -X.

If you prefer to take this in smaller steps: The budgetary change in the national debt was X, growing the national debt to 5.1 Billion + X.

The actual national debt was 10.8 billion dollars, which means that 10.8 Billion - 5.1 Billion - X is the total spent on special appropriations.

what COULD it be challenged under- congressional over reach and states rights? Health has been traditionally viewed as an area of states control. Medicare and Medicaid are much more limited than the proposed reforms and may not wholly serve as a precedent; by contrast they do establish a precedent of federal input into the health system.
the government could counter-argue that it has the power to introduce the reforms under the commerce clause- it does seem to be a more solid argument.

Roe v Wade was not decided on choice per se but on the government's rights to interfere with that choice. it guarantees that a person can not be prevented from having an abortion but subsequent decisions have established that it is not an open ended matter- the states can have some say on when and how that abortion is performed.

This might enlighten everyone

It's an opinion piece by a republican senator.

Furthermore, other legal experts have argued that the penalty for not buying insurance is in fact a tax and spend measure, much like a tax benefit for having minor dependents. Again, the bill doesn't legally require Americans to purchase healthcare, it requires them to pay a penalty if they don't, so the entire attempt to connect United States v Lopez (1995) is incorrect.

The "cash for cloture" argument is not something that will stand up in court either, the lack of a case establishing precedent and a long history of similar bills is quite telling.

The benefits markets could potentially be problematic, but a case could be made its akin to financial markets.

In fact the federal reserve act of 1913 also parallels the health care bill:

Congress decided in the Federal Reserve Act that all nationally chartered banks were required to become members of the Federal Reserve System. It requires them to purchase specified non-transferable stock in their regional Federal reserve bank and to set aside a stipulated amount of non-interest bearing reserves with their respective reserve bank (since 1980 all depository institutions have been required to set aside reserves with the Federal Reserve and be entitled to certain Federal Reserve services - Sections 2 and 19). State chartered banks have the option of becoming members of the Federal Reserve System and to thus be supervised, in part, by the Federal Reserve (Section 9). Member banks are entitled to have access to discounted loans at the discount window in their respective reserve bank, to a 6% annual dividend in their Federal reserve stock and to other services (Sections 13 and 7). The Act also permits Federal reserve banks to act as fiscal agents for the United States government (Section 15).[8]

There is a case of requiring banks (corporations are individuals under US law) to purchase something. There are also arguments that the Federal Reserve act would be unconstitutional under the same standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

It's an opinion piece by a republican senator.

Furthermore, other legal experts have argued that the penalty for not buying insurance is in fact a tax and spend measure, much like a tax benefit for having minor dependents. Again, the bill doesn't legally require Americans to purchase healthcare, it requires them to pay a penalty if they don't, so the entire attempt to connect United States v Lopez (1995) is incorrect.

The "cash for cloture" argument is not something that will stand up in court either, the lack of a case establishing precedent and a long history of similar bills is quite telling.

The benefits markets could potentially be problematic, but a case could be made its akin to financial markets.

In fact the federal reserve act of 1913 also parallels the health care bill:

Congress decided in the Federal Reserve Act that all nationally chartered banks were required to become members of the Federal Reserve System. It requires them to purchase specified non-transferable stock in their regional Federal reserve bank and to set aside a stipulated amount of non-interest bearing reserves with their respective reserve bank (since 1980 all depository institutions have been required to set aside reserves with the Federal Reserve and be entitled to certain Federal Reserve services - Sections 2 and 19). State chartered banks have the option of becoming members of the Federal Reserve System and to thus be supervised, in part, by the Federal Reserve (Section 9). Member banks are entitled to have access to discounted loans at the discount window in their respective reserve bank, to a 6% annual dividend in their Federal reserve stock and to other services (Sections 13 and 7). The Act also permits Federal reserve banks to act as fiscal agents for the United States government (Section 15).[8]

There is a case of requiring banks (corporations are individuals under US law) to purchase something. There are also arguments that the Federal Reserve act would be unconstitutional under the same standards.

---

I'm a registered Democrat and have always believed in the system up to this point. I could care less that it is an opinion piece. It brings facts to light. I've read opinion pieces by Democrats also, and STILL I am leaning the opposite way...mostly because of the controversial nature of our current administration.

I AM NOT AGAINST a healthcare system...what I am against is the slight of hand, sneak in the night way the Democrats are going about trying to get it passed and the clauses they insist upon inserting into it. WHY does it HAVE to force you to buy health insurance? Why can't it be an elective?

As to the statement that by my arguments "the FBI and the CIA are unconstitutional" I do not feel that way at all. For one thing, they were formed to protect the US and enforce Federal laws. I have absolutely nothing against that.

So by your argument, it ISN'T unconstitutional for the government to tell you that you MUST purchase a 13" black and white television ONLY or you will pay a penalty? Or maybe you MUST purchase a hybrid vehicle or pay a penalty? How about if you are only allowed to have one child per household. Would that be ok?

The thing I do NOT like about this health care bill is that there are so many rumors, questions, ect. I really do not know anything about this bill, seems the Politicians are more intersted in manipulating this potential gold mine.

Technically I'm not sure we have any constitutional protection against a government trying to force people to buy black and white televisions or pay a tax penalty. No one will try it though as they'd lose the election and get it repealed immediately.

My issue with it being an opinion piece by a republican senator is you presented it as "This might enlighten everyone". Opinion pieces seldom settle things. They sometimes introduce useful information but as I've shown above much of it doesn't apply.

Health care is fundamentally different from other services however. When you choose to have health-care you are basically saying that if you get seriously ill you'll pay for it yourself until you can't, at which point you'll apply for government aid due to financial need, and the taxpayers will pay for it. You aren't choosing to not have healthcare at all, you're choosing to not pay for healthcare and if disaster strikes you rely upon government programs. Yet those programs cost money, and if people abuse them in that way those costs rise.

The government is basically saying everyone should have reliable healthcare so that people aren't put in situations like this. They can't force people to buy it, so the can put a tax penalty for not buying it, and use those penalties to offset the costs to the government from uninsured people getting seriously ill. Is this the optimal way to deal with those costs? Probably not. However it is a practical incentive to get insurance.

As for my point about constitutionality I think you have basically made my argument by expressing that constitutionality is a feeling. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't make something true. Truth is something that comes from layers of evidence and careful decision not opinions based on feelings.

I think the best example to work from however is by your standards:

The federal reserve act of 1913 is unconstitutional.

It has a lot of similarities in that both force individuals under the law to "buy" things. In the case of the federal reserve act banks (who are individuals according to legal precedent) have to buy shares of the national bank. In the case of the health care bill, its insurance or pay a penalty.

In both cases the constitution does not provide a mandate as it neither denies the states the right to banking nor does it require the federal government to do so.

Hence either the establishment of a US National Bank was unconstitutional yet went unchallenged for nearly a century, or the standard you have set for constitutionality is incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

Technically I'm not sure we have any constitutional protection against a government trying to force people to buy black and white televisions or pay a tax penalty. No one will try it though as they'd lose the election and get it repealed immediately.

My issue with it being an opinion piece by a republican senator is you presented it as "This might enlighten everyone". Opinion pieces seldom settle things. They sometimes introduce useful information but as I've shown above much of it doesn't apply.

Health care is fundamentally different from other services however. When you choose to have health-care you are basically saying that if you get seriously ill you'll pay for it yourself until you can't, at which point you'll apply for government aid due to financial need, and the taxpayers will pay for it. You aren't choosing to not have healthcare at all, you're choosing to not pay for healthcare and if disaster strikes you rely upon government programs. Yet those programs cost money, and if people abuse them in that way those costs rise.

The government is basically saying everyone should have reliable healthcare so that people aren't put in situations like this. They can't force people to buy it, so the can put a tax penalty for not buying it, and use those penalties to offset the costs to the government from uninsured people getting seriously ill. Is this the optimal way to deal with those costs? Probably not. However it is a practical incentive to get insurance.

As for my point about constitutionality I think you have basically made my argument by expressing that constitutionality is a feeling. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't make something true. Truth is something that comes from layers of evidence and careful decision not opinions based on feelings.

I think the best example to work from however is by your standards:

The federal reserve act of 1913 is unconstitutional.

It has a lot of similarities in that both force individuals under the law to "buy" things. In the case of the federal reserve act banks (who are individuals according to legal precedent) have to buy shares of the national bank. In the case of the health care bill, its insurance or pay a penalty.

In both cases the constitution does not provide a mandate as it neither denies the states the right to banking nor does it require the federal government to do so.

Hence either the establishment of a US National Bank was unconstitutional yet went unchallenged for nearly a century, or the standard you have set for constitutionality is incorrect.

---

For one thing, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 WAS unconstitutional and went unchallenged. There is still much controversy surrounding it and it has had 200 amendments to it since it passed.

And, in the words that so many like to use...the Health Care bill is going to set PRECEDENCE for the possibility of other Congressional interference into our every day lives. I find it hard to believe that the proponents of this bill (the ones who are not politicians) are 100% certain that this bill will be good and right for the future of our country.

Furthermore, EVERYTHING written is an opinion piece to a certain extent. The only ones that are not, are scientific analysis or statistics reports. You might read something and garner one thing from it, while I read it and get something else. Very little that is written is black and white. (that wasn't intended as a pun ;))

My daughter has recently qualified for insurance with her employer. I wish I had had such a plan! It is a high deductible plan, I can't remember the deductible amount, and an additional sum each year. I believe $400, that can be used as need for health care. THE $400 ROLLS OVER, AT LEAST THE PART UNUSED, TO THE NEXT YEAR. In a short period of time the amount of the deductible is covered by this additional amount of money put in an account for her!
The administration will make this kind of consumer driven health care go the way of the Dodo if they are successful with their mandated and Government driven insurance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

A draft that goes into effect for a specific condition of the country and isn't done for perpetuity is NOT the same as forcing a citizen to purchase something they don't want. Besides, not only do you pay a penalty, you also are no longer considered a legal citizen. So in that respect it is NOTHING like a tax. I already have health care that I purchased on my own. I like it. I want to keep it, however, there are many who do not have health care and don't want to spend their money on it. That is their choice. They earned the money, they get to choose how to spend it. If this bill passes, the government will regulate the health industry and drive costs beyond what any private insurance company can cover, given what most citizens can afford to pay in premiums. Then the government will step in as "savior" with a single payer system. Heh.

Personally, I cannot trust the government with what they feel will be an adequate healthcare system. They screw up too much for me to feel comfortable. Medicaid and Medicare already have panels restricting care...the Post Office is in shambles (I know, I work there), TARP is a joke, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are basically holes that the government keeps pouring money into.

As to free choice...isn't that what Roe v Wade is all about? The choice to do as you wish with your own body? So now we're going to make a mockery of that with this bill?

---

The Constitution clearly states that any power not spelled out in that document is reserved to the states!!

The health, no insurance bill, is requiring people to purchase something very specific. That is a restriction on freedom of choice. If choice, ie Roe v Wade, is constitutional then this removal of choice is therby unconstitutional. Of course, that is logic and I am sure you will claim such is not a valid assertion since there is no chapter and verse that says as I claim. But then there is no chapter and verse in the Constitution FOR roe v Wade either!

Committing a felony removes your status as a full citizen!

Your comment re budget, debt, and deficit xxxxx xxx xx xxxxxxx xxx xx xxx xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xx xxxxxxxxx. After reading the example I think I should retract the previous statement. Special appropriations are suppose to be either emergency items that, obviously, come up at in opportune times or items that are brought to the floor after the budgets have been completed. Unfortunately our Congressman seems to treat most things as emergencies!

The first formula presents an accurate picture the second does not!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

1. The constitution doesn't mention the FBI therefore the FBI is unconstitutional.

2. The constitution doesn't mention the CIA therefore the CIA is unconstitutional etc..

This is clearly wrong!

Something is unconstitutional only if there is something in the constitution that expressly forbids it, or something in the constitution guaranteeing the opposite. The mere fact that something is not mentioned in the constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional.

If you prefer from dictionary.com under legal dictionary:

contrary to or failing to comply with a constitution; especially : violative of a person's rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution

This means if you are claiming the health law is unconstitutional you need to point out the specific part of the constitution that is violated. It is you who do not understand the constitution if you think that the government has no authority at all over anything that is neither permitted nor forbidden by the Constitution.

As for no longer considered a legal citizen, can you provide a source on this or is it another unsubstantiated claim from fox news?

As for the messed up budgetary system in the states, you can replace all instances of my use of the word budget, by "federal government total expenditure including appropriations" (now isn't that a ridiculously long mouthful). The fact that the government moves items outside the budget doesn't mean the expenses mysteriously vanish, there is a reason that that debt skyrockets far faster than the budgetary deficit.

As for my statement you claim is non-sensical.

Fact: All expenses in the US are either contained in the budget or are special appropriations.

Fact: The national debt grew from 5.1 Billion to 10.8 billion over 1 fiscal year.

Fact: The budgetary deficit for said fiscal year was X.

Conclusion: Special appropriations were 10.8 Billion - 5.1 Billion -X.

If you prefer to take this in smaller steps: The budgetary change in the national debt was X, growing the national debt to 5.1 Billion + X.

The actual national debt was 10.8 billion dollars, which means that 10.8 Billion - 5.1 Billion - X is the total spent on special appropriations.

---

Except that the Governments intrusion into commerce is limited to interstate commerce. Insurance providers are prohibited form interstate competition. Therefore the commerce clause is moot!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bren122

what COULD it be challenged under- congressional over reach and states rights? Health has been traditionally viewed as an area of states control. Medicare and Medicaid are much more limited than the proposed reforms and may not wholly serve as a precedent; by contrast they do establish a precedent of federal input into the health system.
the government could counter-argue that it has the power to introduce the reforms under the commerce clause- it does seem to be a more solid argument.

Roe v Wade was not decided on choice per se but on the government's rights to interfere with that choice. it guarantees that a person can not be prevented from having an abortion but subsequent decisions have established that it is not an open ended matter- the states can have some say on when and how that abortion is performed.

---

Ken Klukowski
Mr. Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.
Ken Blackwell is the Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment at the Family Research Council, Distinguished Fellow for Public Policy at the Buckeye Institute in Columbus, Ohio. He is a visiting fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the American Civil Rights Union. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union and Pastors Retreat Network

But just because Mr Hatch has his name on it it must be wrong! Even a ruling from a Judge is little more than an opinion piece by your claim!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

It's an opinion piece by a republican senator.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

Furthermore, other legal experts have argued that the penalty for not buying insurance is in fact a tax and spend measure, much like a tax benefit for having minor dependents. Again, the bill doesn't legally require Americans to purchase healthcare, it requires them to pay a penalty if they don't, so the entire attempt to connect United States v Lopez (1995) is incorrect.

---

Legal experts? The issue is buy a health insurance policy we approve, or pay the Government to cover you, can in no way be considered a tax!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

The "cash for cloture" argument is not something that will stand up in court either, the lack of a case establishing precedent and a long history of similar bills is quite telling.

---

A bribe is a bribe. A long history of bribes will not nale it legal!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

The benefits markets could potentially be problematic, but a case could be made its akin to financial markets.

---

The benefits "markets" are not permitted by law to enter into the arena controlled by the Federal Government!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

In fact the federal reserve act of 1913 also parallels the health care bill:

Congress decided in the Federal Reserve Act that all nationally chartered banks were required to become members of the Federal Reserve System. It requires them to purchase specified non-transferable stock in their regional Federal reserve bank and to set aside a stipulated amount of non-interest bearing reserves with their respective reserve bank (since 1980 all depository institutions have been required to set aside reserves with the Federal Reserve and be entitled to certain Federal Reserve services - Sections 2 and 19). State chartered banks have the option of becoming members of the Federal Reserve System and to thus be supervised, in part, by the Federal Reserve (Section 9). Member banks are entitled to have access to discounted loans at the discount window in their respective reserve bank, to a 6% annual dividend in their Federal reserve stock and to other services (Sections 13 and 7). The Act also permits Federal reserve banks to act as fiscal agents for the United States government (Section 15).[8]

There is a case of requiring banks (corporations are individuals under US law) to purchase something. There are also arguments that the Federal Reserve act would be unconstitutional under the same standards.

---

Wrong again! By your own words the banks were national in nature!

Or purchase the brand new Tahoe produced by Amish motors!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

I'm a registered Democrat and have always believed in the system up to this point. I could care less that it is an opinion piece. It brings facts to light. I've read opinion pieces by Democrats also, and STILL I am leaning the opposite way...mostly because of the controversial nature of our current administration.

I AM NOT AGAINST a healthcare system...what I am against is the slight of hand, sneak in the night way the Democrats are going about trying to get it passed and the clauses they insist upon inserting into it. WHY does it HAVE to force you to buy health insurance? Why can't it be an elective?

As to the statement that by my arguments "the FBI and the CIA are unconstitutional" I do not feel that way at all. For one thing, they were formed to protect the US and enforce Federal laws. I have absolutely nothing against that.

So by your argument, it ISN'T unconstitutional for the government to tell you that you MUST purchase a 13" black and white television ONLY or you will pay a penalty? Or maybe you MUST purchase a hybrid vehicle or pay a penalty? How about if you are only allowed to have one child per household. Would that be ok?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth694

The thing I do NOT like about this health care bill is that there are so many rumors, questions, ect. I really do not know anything about this bill, seems the Politicians are more intersted in manipulating this potential gold mine.

---

Well the administration tells you that you will be abloe to keep your current provider if you are happy with them. The bill say that such providers in existence prior to day one of the bill are grandfathered, for a period of FIVE years. At such time they must be part of the "Exchange" Providers in the Exchange will be told what they can provide their customers, and how much they can charge by the Government. In order to be part of the Exchange a provider must be under contract to the Government. Under these provisions you tell me who is running health insurance, or who the providers are working for?
There is a provision in the bill to "increase the time between pregnancies". I ask you how can that be accomplished? And what will happen if someone does not comply with the provisions of the regulations? The so called "death panels", there is no language providing for such a panel, but everyone must have a document on file that essentially tells doctors when they can stop trying to save your life. There is a panel spelled out in the bill that will essential be the governing body for the regulations that come from the bill. The great majority of the panel is appointed by Congress and the President. Only one doctor is required to be on the panel.
And I have not read every page of the bill!

The issue at hand is not health care, but helath insurance. The all inclusive health insurance is one of the major contributers to the high cost of health care.
Were we the people still responsible for choosing and paying for a portion of our health care prices would not be so high.
Case in point Lasik surgery is not covered in most plans yet since inception the price of such surgery has dropped. It is a completely consumer driven product. As such has improved its equipment and lowered its cost at a quick pace.
High deductible with medical savings accounts would be a good start, tort reform, interstate competition. But the Dems don;t like these ideas as there is a huge measure of personal responsibility inherent in them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

Technically I'm not sure we have any constitutional protection against a government trying to force people to buy black and white televisions or pay a tax penalty. No one will try it though as they'd lose the election and get it repealed immediately.

My issue with it being an opinion piece by a republican senator is you presented it as "This might enlighten everyone". Opinion pieces seldom settle things. They sometimes introduce useful information but as I've shown above much of it doesn't apply.

Health care is fundamentally different from other services however. When you choose to have health-care you are basically saying that if you get seriously ill you'll pay for it yourself until you can't, at which point you'll apply for government aid due to financial need, and the taxpayers will pay for it. You aren't choosing to not have healthcare at all, you're choosing to not pay for healthcare and if disaster strikes you rely upon government programs. Yet those programs cost money, and if people abuse them in that way those costs rise.

The government is basically saying everyone should have reliable healthcare so that people aren't put in situations like this. They can't force people to buy it, so the can put a tax penalty for not buying it, and use those penalties to offset the costs to the government from uninsured people getting seriously ill. Is this the optimal way to deal with those costs? Probably not. However it is a practical incentive to get insurance.

As for my point about constitutionality I think you have basically made my argument by expressing that constitutionality is a feeling. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't make something true. Truth is something that comes from layers of evidence and careful decision not opinions based on feelings.

I think the best example to work from however is by your standards:

The federal reserve act of 1913 is unconstitutional.

It has a lot of similarities in that both force individuals under the law to "buy" things. In the case of the federal reserve act banks (who are individuals according to legal precedent) have to buy shares of the national bank. In the case of the health care bill, its insurance or pay a penalty.

In both cases the constitution does not provide a mandate as it neither denies the states the right to banking nor does it require the federal government to do so.

Hence either the establishment of a US National Bank was unconstitutional yet went unchallenged for nearly a century, or the standard you have set for constitutionality is incorrect.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

Furthermore, EVERYTHING written is an opinion piece to a certain extent. The only ones that are not, are scientific analysis or statistics reports. You might read something and garner one thing from it, while I read it and get something else. Very little that is written is black and white. (that wasn't intended as a pun ;))

---

Need I really say this? The Global Warming "scientific reports"! I believe they have been shown to be opinion pieces. Or at least suspect of being so!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Need I really say this? The Global Warming "scientific reports"! I believe they have been shown to be opinion pieces. Or at least suspect of being so!

---

I know, I know...I thought of it even as I wrote that, but a REAL scientist writes the facts. I no longer consider those people REAL scientists.

Unfortunately, they have now given science a bad name. I'm hoping (as with most things) the bad apples there do not spoil the bushel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Or purchase the brand new Tahoe produced by Amish motors!

---

I hear it's one horse-power! (but requires more frequent maintenance)

A government large enough to give you everything you need is a government large enough to take everything you have.

former President Gerald Ford

I heard that today and it is so true and perfect to this situation. We are going to slowly empower our government and this health care bill lays down the foundation by which they will eventually have that power over us.