Is the new health care bill unconstitutional?

[Tim]

It's wildly unconstitutional. That's enough.

If the federal government provided brick homes with gilded doorways, and a new car every year, topped with on-demand catered meals and in-home healthcare, no matter how cool and helpful it would still be unconstitutional.

Liberty is more important.

Ok, you say wildly unconstitutional, but what do you base that on? If this is really true, then won't it be struck down when challenged in the courts? Don't you think this was looked at very closely by numerous lawyers, constitutional lawyers?

 

[Tim]

And if possible, I would like this thread be a good honest debate, not a partisan argument.

 

[dt3]

I believe that access to healthcare should be an absolute basic human right. However, there is no right to health insurance. I think stretching the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution to mandate Americans pay for what is supposedly a "right" is absolutely ludicrous; therefore it isn't Constitutional in that regard. Trying to justify it with the "interstate commerce" clause is equally asinine, since most states don't allow you to buy insurance across borders anyway; therefore it's not Constitutional in that regard.

Here's my fundamental flaw with your question Tim: The onus is on the people who pass the law to prove it IS in the Constitution, not on opponents to prove it isn't.

So, what do you think makes it Constitutional?

 

[Accountable]

That was bizarre, like a teleport.

Ok, you say wildly unconstitutional, but what do you base that on? If this is really true, then won't it be struck down when challenged in the courts? Don't you think this was looked at very closely by numerous lawyers, constitutional lawyers?

I base it on the constitution, of course. If it's not there, it's not up to the federal gov't. The states can take it on if they choose. In fact, that would be the ideal way. Fifty programs, each tailored to it's state citizens - each looking to the others for ideas on how to be "better", however they may define that word. The federal gov't could provide nationwide statistics to show what's working and what's not. Isn't that better than a one-size-fits-all approach?

But the federal politicians want the power and guard it jealously. It will be challenged in court, and in the meantime the program will go on as flawed, as rushed through, with thought only for political favors owed. When it is declared unconstitutional, the debate will not be whether to or not. The debate will be on how to change what's already in place. The foot's in the door. The camel's nose is under the tent. Pick your metaphor.

 

[Accountable]

I believe that access to healthcare should be an absolute basic human right. However, there is no right to health insurance. I think stretching the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution to mandate Americans pay for what is supposedly a "right" is absolutely ludicrous; therefore it isn't Constitutional in that regard. Trying to justify it with the "interstate commerce" clause is equally asinine, since most states don't allow you to buy insurance across borders anyway; therefore it's not Constitutional in that regard.

Here's my fundamental flaw with your question Tim: The onus is on the people who pass the law to prove it IS in the Constitution, not on opponents to prove it isn't.

So, what do you think makes it Constitutional?

A basic right is something someone posesses without depriving anyone else of anything. Freedom of speech - no one is required to listen. Freedom of worship - no one else has to help or attend. Freedom to bear arms - but you have to get it yourself. Access to healthcare means seeing a doctor. The doctor has to be there. Shall we force the doctor to work for free? If not, who will pay the doctor? Whoever it is, will they have the right to refuse? No? Then we have enslaved one to fulfill the "right" of another.

 

[dt3]

A basic right is something someone posesses without depriving anyone else of anything. Freedom of speech - no one is required to listen. Freedom of worship - no one else has to help or attend. Freedom to bear arms - but you have to get it yourself. Access to healthcare means seeing a doctor. The doctor has to be there. Shall we force the doctor to work for free? If not, who will pay the doctor? Whoever it is, will they have the right to refuse? No? Then we have enslaved one to fulfill the "right" of another.

Way to blow what I said out of proportion and take it over the top. Did I say we need to put doctors in chains and drag them to sick poor people? No. I said people should have access to basic medical care, as long as its done lawfully AND in an intelligent manner, and as far as I'm concerned this bill is neither.

I don't have a problem with 50 state plans, in fact I've proposed that very idea before.

 

[Accountable]

Way to blow what I said out of proportion and take it over the top. Did I say we need to put doctors in chains and drag them to sick poor people? No. I said people should have access to basic medical care, as long as its done lawfully AND in an intelligent manner, and as far as I'm concerned this bill is neither.

I don't have a problem with 50 state plans, in fact I've proposed that very idea before.

Sorry my rhetoric pissed you off. I didn't mean to. The enslavement is metaphorical, and was actually talking about us taxpayers paying the bill. A doctor's going to doctor somebody whether we have a gov't program or not.

My problem is with referring to it as a right. People think Social Security is a right now. As the various countries go broke, their citizens are screaming about their "rights" that the countries can't afford to provide anymore. If you can only have it so long as the money exists to pay for it, then it's a privilege, a service.

If a state's citizens vote to provide themselves with this privilege, more power to 'em but the road they choose is destined for pain. I am absolutely against any kind of federal assistance for such a program, because it would mean citizens of a state that opted for the liberty of personal responsibility would be saddled with the costs, and that's just not right.

 

[edgray]

My problem is with referring to it as a right. People think Social Security is a right now. As the various countries go broke, their citizens are screaming about their "rights" that the countries can't afford to provide anymore. If you can only have it so long as the money exists to pay for it, then it's a privilege, a service.

Sorry to chirp in slightly off topic but I do really like the way Spain's Social Security system works. You basically get out only what you've contributed, so it kinda works out that for every year worked you accrue a couple of months social security. I do consider it a right however, as unemployment is down to mismanagement from the govt. There shouldn't be any unemployment at all, and it's the stupidity of govts that creates it.

 

[Alien Allen]

And if possible, I would like this thread be a good honest debate, not a partisan argument.

Does that mean you won't post anything further

 

[dt3]

Sorry my rhetoric pissed you off. I didn't mean to. The enslavement is metaphorical, and was actually talking about us taxpayers paying the bill. A doctor's going to doctor somebody whether we have a gov't program or not.

My problem is with referring to it as a right. People think Social Security is a right now. As the various countries go broke, their citizens are screaming about their "rights" that the countries can't afford to provide anymore. If you can only have it so long as the money exists to pay for it, then it's a privilege, a service.

If a state's citizens vote to provide themselves with this privilege, more power to 'em but the road they choose is destined for pain. I am absolutely against any kind of federal assistance for such a program, because it would mean citizens of a state that opted for the liberty of personal responsibility would be saddled with the costs, and that's just not right.

Then we're in complete agreement with how it should be handled, we just disagree on why. I see it as a right, you see it as a privilege. Last year, I probably would have agreed with you, but now I just think the opinion sounds incredibly callous, no offense. While I don't for a minute think the problem is as bad as Michael Moore and Democrats would have us believe, and their "solution" is horrible at best, I do think our current system is deeply flawed and should be fixed.

 

[Minor Axis]

Here's my fundamental flaw with your question Tim: The onus is on the people who pass the law to prove it IS in the Constitution, not on opponents to prove it isn't.

So, what do you think makes it Constitutional?

In Constitutional arguments, don't most people go to the Supreme Court to prove something is unconstitutional, not to prove it is constitutional?

 

[retro]

In Constitutional arguments, don't most people go to the Supreme Court to prove something is unconstitutional, not to prove it is constitutional?

If a law was struck down by a lower court, it could be brought before the Supreme Court to determine if that was the case or if it was in fact Constitutional as originally believed to be.

 

[Minor Axis]

If a law was struck down by a lower court, it could be brought before the Supreme Court to determine if that was the case or if it was in fact Constitutional as originally believed to be.

Thanks for clarifying!

 

[Peter Parka]

This constitution thing really cracks me up because it reminds me so much of the Bible, it's scary. It was written years and years ago yet people still feel it's completely relevant today. Also everyone seems to have already seemed to have made their mind up what they want to believe politically and just try and twist the Constitution around to fit in with their own political bent.:24:

 

[Accountable]

Old = Irrelevant??

sad.

 

[Peter Parka]

Old = Irrelevant??

sad.

Not completely but you've got to admit the world has kind of moved on historically and politically since the constitution was written, take the stuff about owning weapons for example, there is absolutely no threat of the USA getting invaded now so that the country would rely on common citizens taking up arms, high tech weapons like what is around today would also be inconceivable to people 300 years ago. A guy who would shit himself at the sight of an aeroplane really isn't in a great position to make laws about weapons, lol!

 

[dt3]

Not completely but you've got to admit the world has kind of moved on historically and politically since the constitution was written, take the stuff about owning weapons for example, there is absolutely no threat of the USA getting invaded now so that the country would rely on common citizens taking up arms, high tech weapons like what is around today would also be inconceivable to people 300 years ago. A guy who would shit himself at the sight of an aeroplane really isn't in a great position to make laws about weapons, lol!

Boy, I haven't heard this argument since the last thread you made it in

 

[Peter Parka]

Boy, I haven't heard this argument since the last thread you made it in

And it still makes so much sense that you still haven't managed to present a good argument against it since the last thread I made it in.

 

[Minor Axis]

Not completely but you've got to admit the world has kind of moved on historically and politically since the constitution was written, take the stuff about owning weapons for example, there is absolutely no threat of the USA getting invaded now so that the country would rely on common citizens taking up arms, high tech weapons like what is around today would also be inconceivable to people 300 years ago. A guy who would shit himself at the sight of an aeroplane really isn't in a great position to make laws about weapons, lol!

I'm building my little "My Constitution Education" thread and so far everything seems pretty sound from a principle standpoint. I suspect the issues will arise, when the discussion moves from principles to specifics. The Constitution has been updated over the years so it's not completely in the dark ages.

 

[Accountable]

Not completely but you've got to admit the world has kind of moved on historically and politically since the constitution was written, take the stuff about owning weapons for example, there is absolutely no threat of the USA getting invaded now so that the country would rely on common citizens taking up arms, high tech weapons like what is around today would also be inconceivable to people 300 years ago. A guy who would shit himself at the sight of an aeroplane really isn't in a great position to make laws about weapons, lol!

Asked and answered many times. No reason to believe you'd read it again, so I won't type it again.

eta:

And it still makes so much sense that you still haven't managed to present a good argument against it since the last thread I made it in.

Here's the "argument": we're different.

Now get over it.