Obamacare ruled Unconstitutional

I vote that, when you get sick, you are simply left to your own. I certainly don't want to pay higher health rates cover for an idiot who won't pay their fair share.

Kind of funny that Mitt Romney is busy cleaning up his tie to the porn industry (a weak tie that sane people would not give a shit about, but Tea folk care) instead of explaining how he did the same thing (mandated health ins) in Mass.

"In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance."

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

query wrote:

Ignoring all of the nuts and bolts of Obama care, I'm interested to know why so many are against the clause that all individuals have health care. The opposing choice is that 40% of Americans don't have health care and the rest of us have to foot the bill when they get sick. In many ways thats similar to a tax - and we all know how republicans feel about taxes.

The U.S. Constitution does not permit the federal government to force citizens to purchase health insurance or anything else. If the government is allowed to breach the Constitution, there are no limits on government power. The power to force citizens to purchase health insurance is the same power to kill millions of people in an illegal, undeclared war in Iraq - that being the power to override the Constitutional restrains on government function.

I COMPLETELY AGREE! This bill is completely unconstitutional and needs to be removed.

I suppose making people pay for car insurance in order to drive is unconstitutional too.

Well then, before you say, that's because it protects other's people in an accident too.

Then I will say, how is that different if someone goes into ER and doesn't have enough money or health insurance to cover it. Therefore health insurance protects doctors, nurses, and all others involved from working without compensation.

Then you will say, yeah, but you only have to buy car insurance if you choose to drive.

And I will say, you pay car insurance because when driving you put others at risk. With health insurance, you are always at risk. You could trip the moment you get up from the computer, crack your head open, and go to the hospital.

In all these ways I see how it is no different than car insurance. Having that said, it'd be much better if we just made it single payer health insurance, that way taxes go directly to it, just like the fire department and police department. Or should we privatize those sectors too?

Clay wrote:

"In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance."

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

That act was more akin to a licensing restriction, just like auto insurance, because you don't have to be a seaman.

For what it's worth, Adams also signed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

MagnumRunner wrote:

I suppose making people pay for car insurance in order to drive is unconstitutional too.

Yes, it is unconstitutional, and that law should be repealed. The current existence of unconstitutional laws does not justify the creaton of additional ones.

this is completely different than requiring every person to buy health insurance. people chose to be sailors and, if they didn't want to pay this fee, they could have chosen not to be a sailor and, voila, no fee. nice try though.

random a hole wrote:

instead of explaining how he did the same thing (mandated health ins) in Mass.

Is an explanation required because he did it and is now fighting against it, or is one required because when they tried it there it was a massive failure that only one quarter of the state population felt was successful?

I Know Better wrote:

[quote]query wrote:

The U.S. Constitution does not permit the federal government to force citizens to purchase health insurance or anything else. If the government is allowed to breach the Constitution, there are no limits on government power. The power to force citizens to purchase health insurance is the same power to kill millions of people in an illegal, undeclared war in Iraq - that being the power to override the Constitutional restrains on government function.

The Federal Government is not forcing citizens to purchase health insurance. Show me the provision of the act that makes it a crime to not have healt insurance? Show me the provision of the act that requires employers to deduct the cost of health insurance? Show me the provision that identifies the insurance company that agrees to insure everyone who is forced to by health insurance by the government?

All the act does is tax people who don't buy health insurance at a different rate than those who do. This is simply a logical way to recapture the expense to the government of free loaders who do not purchase health care.

Not saying I agree.

You asked for a source, I provided you one since you were too lazy to find it yourself.

Of course the act is logical. Lots of things are logical that are nevertheless impermissible under the Constitution.

And as a purely legal matter, it's not relevant that the individual mandate is enforced with civil rather than criminal penalties. Civil penalties are merely a softer form of coercion.

4. The judge also rejected the government’s incredibly far-reaching argument that the health-care law should in actuality be considered a tax because its penalties raise revenue. Normally, Congress and the White House seek to hide their tax increases by calling them something else. But here, the administration is rushing to call it a tax because that would have subjected it to looser constitutional scrutiny than regular laws. The court viewed this characterization as a bait-and-switch:

Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an “Alice-in-Wonderland” tack and argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely, thereby circumventing the safeguard that exists to keep their broad power in check.

I would like to see anything where he admits to what he now apparently believes to be a colossal mistake. If he does so, then more power to him.

themanontherun wrote:

random a hole wrote:

instead of explaining how he did the same thing (mandated health ins) in Mass.

Is an explanation required because he did it and is now fighting against it, or is one required because when they tried it there it was a massive failure that only one quarter of the state population felt was successful?

Illogical argument for Obamacare

I have to buy car insurance.

No. You do NOT have to own a car.

Clay wrote:

"In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance."

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

Not to mention, if you read the act, they're not purchasing insurance. It's a payroll tax used to fund government healthcare.

since obama hasn't made the Act publicly available (contrary to his campaign promises of transparency), you are asking for something that cannot be done.

the Act says that everyone must purchase health insurance and, if you don't, you are fined. that's requiring everyone to buy it. using your logic, do you think speed limits make it illegal to speed? the government says that x is the speed limit and if you don't want to follow it, you just to pay a fine.

A good history of the Commerce Clause. Libertarian bent.

Erwin Chemerinsky, towards the end, posits that no matter how silly or unlikely, Congress could make citizens buy cars.