Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Dec 13, 2010.
It IS unconstitutional. Period.
We actually wouldn't be having this fight if the public option had been passed. They'd have to declare Medicare and Medicaid unconstitutional along with it.
Just call it a "tax break" instead of a fine, the GOP will eat it up
Also, from what this article states, this judge is just playing politics so I'm pretty sure it is entirely constitutional. Just more waste by the right.
You don't have to have Medicaid. If you want it you have to apply for it.
Good. I don't like being forced to buy health insurance from companies trying to profit off of my life.
You also wouldn't have to have public insurance. You could purchase replacement or supplementary private insurance. The lack of choice would be paying in, which is exactly how Medicaid is now.
Those are unconstitutional too. There is no enumerated power within the constitution that grants such a right. Period.
Fivepoint, I appreciate your OPINION, but it is ONLY that, your opinion.
The reality of the situation is that Courts have for years held that they (Medicare/Medicaid/other similar laws and programs) are Constitutional. In fact, every other district court has ruled that this same law is Constitutional. That's what is called a split of opinion in the lower courts. But here, this Virginia Judge is what we in the business call an activist judge.
Get out of here. Facts are not welcome in PRSI
But only liberal judges can be activist! I don't understand. Help me Fox News, you're my only hope.
Other than at the local park, what bench do you sit on?
Right... but that's because you consider a strict reading of the constitution and a working assumption that the Federal Government is limited in power by specifically enumerated powers to be "activist", correct?
Can you (or ANYONE HERE) please tell me which of the constitution's enumerated powers gives the Federal Government the right to require the purchase of insurance?
The one which allows them to provide for general welfare of the country.
I don't either.
It should have been single-payer.
I actually welcome the courts overturning this luke-warm compromise that Obama and congress managed to pass.
Ok... here's the enumerated power:
I see two primary problems with your suggestion... first of all, in this context, the constitution is clearly referring to the general welfare of the nation, and not of the individual citizens (see bold). The liberal reading would essentially mean that the federal government could do anything it wanted AT ALL to ensure the welfare of any individual citizen. Clearly a logical fallacy in a limited-power government. Second, we know exactly the the founders intended for this enumerated power to mean, as we have their own words as proof:
Very true, in my lifetime (40) I have never seen this country in more of a need of providing general welfare... Not taking care of it would be unconstitutional.
And providing adequate healthcare keeps the nation going.
Now obviously UHC would be better at that, but the current proposal is a step forward.
Next time we elect another democratic president with balls and have a supermajority again, we should totally just go for the public option. But he's gotta have balls. Or she for that matter.
Thomas Jefferson's opinions would be shouted down on this forum because he clearly doesn't understand the Constitution.
We should have Mcrain write up a whole new constitution for our country. To get it right this time and clear up the confusion. The constitution exists as a tool for government rather than protection from government. Right, Mcrain?
Why? That isn't going to get us any closer to single payer.
If the Dems could not pass single payer with 60 Senate seats, a huge majority in the House, and the White House, it's never going to happen in this country.
That's silly. He clearly understood his role in the drafting of the document, and he certainly had some very well thought out opinions on the matter. However, his opinions are exactly that, merely his opinions. The Constitution as a rule of law contained its own way of deciding what is or is not legal, and that is the Judicial branch.
Oh come on, a Constitution shouldn't be written by one person, and certainly not by a group with only a single viewpoint. I like that we have a document that was written as a collaborative effort and included the views of multiple points of view. That being said, the Constitution does not exist as a tool, but rather a framework upon which the government builds that which is necessary.
What in the world does healthcare's ability to 'keep the nation going' have to do with the constitutionality of such a bill?
Yes, a framework which can be built on through a constitutional amendment process - exactly the opposite of the subversion and redefinition process which liberals and 'living document' supporters advocate today.
Because its constitutional if it provides for the general welfare of the United States...
Fivepoint, you know this already...
It may help with single payer because the insurance companies still will have to provide insurance even if you have a preexisting condition. If everyone isn't required to buy insurance the insurance companies can't afford to stay in business because they will only have sick people signing up. If insurance companies start to go under we will need some sort of reform that could be a single payer system.