Health Reform Not Constitutional

Status
Not open for further replies.
to OP

it will most definately will end up in the highest supreme court(not definately but probably).

keep in mind that when things such as social security in the 30's or this healthcar bill as another example pass into law, changes are made but an actual repeal of this healthcare bill is extremely doubtful.
 
I tend to agree that generally, a European (IE French) health care system would be better than what we have (costing less than half per capita) BUT, that doesn't mean that we could pull it off. I think in all likely-hood a universal HC system in the U.S. would cost more than our private one.`

Also, Insurance is not gambling, its the opposite of gambling. Gambling is taking on a risk for chance of reward, insurance is mitigating risk by taking a small but certain loss to avoid a chance of a catastrophic loss.

But because Health Insurance covers EVERYTHING its not insurance anymore, its a payment plan.
 
Yes, I thought it through. It comes down to determining what an acceptable profit is. That should be up to the market, not government.

I sell parts to a customer at a profit I consider too low and which I would normally not accept. It is all i can get though. I continue because I sell the same parts to another customer for much more meaning the reduced profit on the first is acceptable to me.

If the larger customer at the higher value went away I would discontinue sales to the lower profit one.

This has strayed from the COTUS aspects though and we should refocus.
 
It will save money if the supreme court ends up ruling that we cannot force someone to get healthcare. Hawaii gave it up because it cost a ton, and Masschusetts has had a lot of problems with it.
 
Well, here's a couple of more points about health insurance, and again, nothing to do with firearms. I'm afraid I can't make the connection.

When a given state makes regulations that either doctors or health insurers don't like, eventually those things become scarce in the state. Sure, there'll be some doctors around and you can still buy health insurance but things change. But I suppose that was the point. This isn't to say it would be much different with uniform national rules.

Also, and you probably already know this, at least if you are insured under a group plan, there is nothing standard about health insurance coverage. Every year, usually, the people buying the coverage go through an involved process to make an insurance plan, sometimes more than one, and so coverage can be all over the place.

And I imagine that the wide spread use of insurance would tend to make medical and pharmaceutical costs that much higher, come to think of it.
 
LDSGJA said:
Also, Insurance is not gambling, its the opposite of gambling. Gambling is taking on a risk for chance of reward, insurance is mitigating risk by taking a small but certain loss to avoid a chance of a catastrophic loss.
Click to expand...

It's all in how you parse the words I suppose...

I walk into a casino and drop $20 on the roulette table.... I'm using $20 which I may or may not lose at the chance of profiting, say, $1000.

I buy health insurance...

I'm using $1,200 every month, which I may or may not lose, on the chance that I may "profit" $20,000 if I need gall bladder surgery, or $100,000 if I get cancer.

Fact is, the casino/gambler relationship is almost exactly like the insurance/insured relationship.


LDSGJA said:
I tend to agree that generally, a European (IE French) health care system would be better than what we have (costing less than half per capita)
Click to expand...

The "cost per capita" hides the real truth.... if you want to spend less on your car, buy a Hyundai instead of a Ferrari, but don't think you're getting the same car for less money.

See where this is going? Spend less, get less. They can not get the same treatment for less money. If it's cheaper because doctors make less money, they end up with doctors that are WORTH less money. If they pay less because the use old MRI machines, they get worse results from the MRIs. If they pay less because they pick and choose who gets what care, or there's a 2 year waiting list for mammograms, people are dying to reduce the cost.... it goes on and on.
 
When Davy Crockett was a member of the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. He gave an eloquent speech on the matter, which began...

Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.

Is it constitutional to endorse the use of threats, force and intimidation, to appropriate the monies of one group and give it to another?

Is it constitutional to mandate that the well and successful pay the medical expenses of their less fortunate fellow citizens?

I truly feel sympathy for those with catastrophic illness, just as Crockett felt sympathy for the widow. However, just because something is worthy of sympathy and charity, does not make the usurping of the constitution legal or correct.
 
Ok - we are debating health care itself and funding mechanisms. Should we go back to whether the current law is constitutional as compared to how the French or Swedes fund it?

If not, let's close it.

Glenn
 
Should we go back to whether the current law is constitutional as compared to how the French or Swedes fund it?
Click to expand...

We should.

I don't have much of a dog in this fight. They made sure not to mess with military health plans because military and veterans lobbyists are quite powerful and well organized. But...

I have never been able to see the justification of forcing someone to do something just because they are alive. It just strikes me as anti-freedom an anti-American, as well as being unconstitutional. There is nothing else in this country that the US government is allowed to compel you to do, you always have a choice in the matter.

- Don't want car insurance? Don't drive on public roads.

- Don't want to send your kids to school? Home school.

You can still get drafted but we are talking about the defense of the homeland and state. The draft is a temporary measure, not for your whole life and there are plenty of ways to dodge it, and you can even still become pr... you get the idea. It is not a mandatory cradle to grave program that manages my life in a way in which I may not wish to be managed.

So why should I owe the government something just for being alive? Where is the constitutional authority granting that? My reading of the tenth amendment is a little different. I don't think there is much more to it than that.
 
Sounds like some people would just as soon junk the constitution and go back to the Articles of Confederations, if that.
 
Is it constitutional to endorse the use of threats, force and intimidation, to appropriate the monies of one group and give it to another?
Click to expand...
Actually, yes, it's called taxation. ;)

Congress is clearly authorized to levy taxes. The problem is that the courts have ruled that the health care mandate isn't a tax; instead, it's an administrative penalty for failure to buy a product from a private non-governmental entity. The government distributes tax revenue to private contractors routinely, but requiring private citizens to distribute their own money to private companies in order to avoid government penalties is a whole 'nother ball of wax.
 
The balance scale on freedom vs law swings left and right over time and at periods past and to my mind in the present we have periods when the vast gulf of the differences between right and left and those for regulating every possible thing and those for allowing the freedom of choice threaten to have discord of one level or another.

I think the Health Care law is unconstitutional in that it prohibits the freedom of choice concerning a personal matter. The constitution does not guarntee that the state or federal government will protect you from all harm and ill what it guarntess you is the ability to have choices that are suppose to be protected. Further I do not see the constitution guarnteeing that any group will pay to provide some other group a benefit.

I think the role of the Federal Government was origionally intended to ensure equality and fairness in trade and governmental action between states and to provide for the common defense of the nation little more and certainly nothing less.

I sincerely think the government at the federal level has far exceeded its constitutional mandate and powers in every category. I also think the judicial system needs to be reformed in that laws as they are proposed within the house and senate should be required to have some level of supreme court review prior to ratification and enforcement so that our freedoms as citizens arent always awaiting someone to file suit on one infringment or another.

Part of the problem is our court system "as is" is reactive and not proactive, nor do I think the founding fathers ever anticipated the sheer volume and breath of laws that would be passed. I think the founding fathers would be disturbed greatly about even the concept of passing a 2000 page bill.

I do not think we were meant to be a nation of laws but rather a nation of Freedoms with very basic rules of conduct expected and if for no other reason than this alone I think this Health Care law is unconstitutional as it prohibits the freedom to choose and it would also mean there are no limits to what the government can make you purchase.
 
The government distributes tax revenue to private contractors routinely, but requiring private citizens to distribute their own money to private companies in order to avoid government penalties is a whole 'nother ball of wax.
Click to expand...

There is part of the nug right there. Next they will be saying I have to buy my food at Food Lion and am not allowed to buy from the farmer on the side of the road.... never mind.
 
So the court system is reactive instead of proactive and that's a problem? I seem to recall a lot of complaints about activist judges but I guess you don't mean that. Anyway, isn't the role of the federal government to spread freedom and democracy, American-style, throughout the world by invasion now and then? I mean, that's what we've been doing now for the last 50 years except when Carter was in office.
 
Anyway, isn't the role of the federal government to spread freedom and democracy, American-style, throughout the world by invasion now and then? I mean, that's what we've been doing now for the last 50 years except when Carter was in office.
Click to expand...

If you want to shut this thread down continue to grind your personal axe. Come on, your point has nothing to do with this debate and was thrown out as torch onto a pile of kindling.
 
Nothing in this thread has anything to do with guns, does it?
Click to expand...
The limits of the Commerce clause, determining if there are any in modern times, and the precedent this case might establish, seems to parallel alot of discussions I've read here.

Maybe some year in the future every gun or frame, or box of ammunition, requires liability insurance to lay in a sock drawer unloaded, or be fined.
 
Last edited:
Nothing in this thread has anything to do with guns, does it?
Click to expand...
Does the Government have the power to force you to buy a commercial product to practice an individual right? Case in point, trigger locks.
 
So the court system is reactive instead of proactive and that's a problem? I seem to recall a lot of complaints about activist judges but I guess you don't mean that. Anyway, isn't the role of the federal government to spread freedom and democracy, American-style, throughout the world by invasion now and then? I mean, that's what we've been doing now for the last 50 years except when Carter was in office.
Click to expand...

Im sorry my friend I cannot get into what you presented here.

My point is simple and applies to the commerce clause and its limitations as I see them. The entire point of this country is to promote Freedom, the commerce clause was simply or not so simply to promote fairness between the states in order to perserve the union and lessen the possibility of open warfare between states.

My overall point is the house and senate were always expected to maintain the value of freedom and to be its protectors and failing that the court system was empowered to do so. The founding fathers I am certain never foresaw the time when we would pass 2000 page bills nor the number of laws being passed annually. Freedom can only exist when your every choice is not legislated.

We must be able to choose, the commerce clause was far exceeded.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top