We let the genie out of the bottle years ago and we are paying for it today. Look at all these social programs and they all have huge deficeits. We do not need to add more ill-advised programs to the list, no matter how well intentioned.

 

 

You're missing (or avoiding) my point. The point is that we do have all these programs. If they're not unconstitutional, on the same premise that people say this legislation is unconstitutional, then there's something intrinsically wrong with the constitutionality argument.

 

Deficeits have no bearing on the constitutionality argument. It lends a bit of color to the description of the issue, but doesn't change the core of the argument.

I hope I'm never standed on a deserted island with some of you, with no food. :lol: I fear that should I become weak, I'd be left to die for the sake of "natural order". :lol:

If I were advocating ceasing to help those in need, you may have a point. One of the great things that make up our humanity is the ability to choose. More often then not, when faced with choices, the human race makes the right choice. By forcing us to pay for this, where is our choice? If I know someone that is sick and struggling, will I turn my back on them? Absolutely not, I'll do whatever I can to help them, but we at least need to have a choice in the matter.

I wasn't talking about the bill, in saying that. I was just referring to what you said...or maybe just, how it sounded.

You're missing (or avoiding) my point. The point is that we do have all these programs. If they're not unconstitutional, on the same premise that people say this legislation is unconstitutional, then there's something intrinsically wrong with the constitutionality argument.

 

Deficeits have no bearing on the constitutionality argument. It lends a bit of color to the description of the issue, but doesn't change the core of the argument.

 

I find all of them to be unconstitutional. we just have had some weak-kneed people in government for the last 75 years and power hungry as well.

Then we cease to be human. Out humanity is that which sets us apart from the animals. If you strip us of that most basic attribute, we can no longer consider ourselves the most evolved species, and cannot possibly maitain any shred of a society.

Again, no one is saying that you don't have a right to live. No one is saying if you get sick you shouldn't be giving treatment. What is being said is it is your responsiblity to pay for that treatment. Or pay for the insurance that will pay for that treatment. It isn't the responsiblity of the 86% of the population that already has insurance to pay for your insurance. It isn't the federal governments job to make sure you have insurance. They have over stepped their authority once again. Where does it stop?

I find all of them to be unconstitutional. we just have had some weak-kneed people in government for the last 75 years and power hungry as well.

 

 

Then, you still are avoiding my question...how can this be challenged as unconstitutional while not challenging the other programs?

Again, no one is saying that you don't have a right to live. No one is saying if you get sick you shouldn't be giving treatment. What is being said is it is your responsiblity to pay for that treatment. Or pay for the insurance that will pay for that treatment. It isn't the responsiblity of the 86% of the population that already has insurance to pay for your insurance. It isn't the federal governments job to make sure you have insurance. They have over stepped their authority once again. Where does it stop?

But the government already pays for indigent care as it is. I think a very basic level of healthcare--just enough to get by, within reason--should be a right of all Americans.

I have supported some changes, but not this unconstitutional bill. I am for tort reform, allowing the selling of insurance across state lines, and finding someway of helping those with long term illneses. While not I'm not a big fan of allowing a parent keeping their children on their plans, I'll accept that one.

 

This bill is unconstutional as it forces people like me to pay for someone else's health care. To me that is taking away my freedoms now that I am forced to help others make a living. I am willing to help others, but that is my decision, not the government. The liberal Dems ignored the call for some basic changes, instead going for this bill that calls for more government control. Which is their true goal.

 

No it doesn't. Insurance spreads the cost of coverage for EVERYBODY out over a broader group of people so that it becomes affordable to EVERYBODY. It does not force you to pay for someone else's care.

 

With that argument, you are forced to pay for someone else's police force and someone else's roads and someone else's fire protection and someone else's food safety.

 

I would wager that it is more important spread the cost of health care over the entire population than it is to spread the cost of highways.

But the government already pays for indigent care as it is. I think a very basic level of healthcare--just enough to get by, within reason--should be a right of all Americans.

I disagree

I disagree

Wow! :eek:

 

Yeah, I guess it would be better to just let people die, if they don't happen to be as strong or fortunate as you or me. Sounds like something Ebenezer Scrooge would come up with.

No it doesn't. Insurance spreads the cost of coverage for EVERYBODY out over a broader group of people so that it becomes affordable to EVERYBODY. It does not force you to pay for someone else's care.

 

With that argument, you are forced to pay for someone else's police force and someone else's roads and someone else's fire protection and someone else's food safety.

 

I would wager that it is more important spread the cost of health care over the entire population than it is to spread the cost of highways.

 

The constitution says nothing about me being responsible for EVERYBODY. It says nothing about the governmment being responsible for EVERYBODY.

 

You sure do like redistributing what EVERYBODY else has.

I have some provisional reservations about certain aspects of the bill as well, but I don't find it unconstitutional at all.

 

How is this any more unconstitutional than social aid programs already in place? If the rallying cry is going to be the uncostitutionality of the legislation, then I suggest they take on the whole kit and kaboodle, because this isn't the worst of all the programs we have in place.

 

 

 

RM,

 

IMO, the difference between this and the other social programs is that the other programs are paid for via taxes. Which whether we agree with the programs or not, has been deemed to be constitutional. They didn't do that here. What their doing here is compelling people to purchase insurance as a condition of being a US citizen. Whether they want insurance or not. In turn they are also forcing them to pay a portion of someone else's insurance. They did it this way so that they can say they didn't raise taxes. No matter how much this looks like taxing and then spending it is not. It is a direct redistribution of one persons income to another. It opens the door to so many other violations of our rights and personal properties. All they have to do is say "We don't have to raise taxes, we'll just make it a condition of citizenship to purchase it." Because one of the surest ways to get voted out of office is to raise taxes. IMO it is unconstitutional.

 

This should and will be fought fiercly in the courts.

Wow! :eek:

 

Yeah, I guess it would be better to just let people die, if they don't happen to be as strong or fortunate as you or me. Sounds like something Ebenezer Scrooge would come up with.

 

Actually, it' sounds a lot like the Canadian Healthcare system, where the government gets to decide a lot of who gets what procedure.

Then, you still are avoiding my question...how can this be challenged as unconstitutional while not challenging the other programs?

 

At the fedearal level they are forcing you to buy a product. The arguement of car insurance is different, as you buy insurance to pay for the damages done to the other guy. The special deals that some states are receiving. That means some citizens are getting a benefit that I'm not, which to me is saying I'm less equal than they are. Some state AG's are also saying the bill violates the 10th Am.

Edited March 24, 201016 yr by bballfamily
added comment

Wow! :eek:

 

Yeah, I guess it would be better to just let people die, if they don't happen to be as strong or fortunate as you or me. Sounds like something Ebenezer Scrooge would come up with.

 

 

To be fair Scrooge's change of heart and eventual charity though were voluntary. There is nothing voluntary about this bill.

 

I also do not agree that everyone deserves a "right" to medical care. It is a privilege and it is a business. If you want charity then send them to a free clinic or a religious hospital.