Obamacare Unconstitutional?

[CDNBear]

Q: Will the IRS hire 16,500 new agents to enforce the health care law?

A: No. The law requires the IRS mostly to hand out tax credits, not collect penalties. The claim of 16,500 new agents stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation.

Key words are very important.

I really enjoyed this article by Forbes. If you don't buy insurance, and you're just above the bar set by the Gov't, the penalties shall flow.

How ObamaCare Will Affect Your Insurance - Forbes.com

Besides that, you have to ignore Hamilton, Madison, Marshal and Story, then perform some really interesting legal gymnastics to abuse the Commerce Clause as Obama has, as well as the two other Judges that found it Constitutional.

If one were so inclined to put their ideology aside, and actually examine the road this is traveling. They'd find it very slippery indeed.

I'm not even remotely condemning medicare. It should be universally free, everywhere. But in this instance, it isn't free and will not only forcefully place an arbitrary burden on the working class, but it sets a precedent, in which the Federal Gov't of the US can regulate your finances. Forcing you to purchase a product, from a private market.

Why is it the left, which seem to hate big business every other day of the week, suddenly think it's OK for the Fed's to force people to give money to those same big businesses?

OH ya, moral bankruptcy and ethically challenged.

 

[El Barto]

Bear, sounds paradoxal ....not sure if it is used in the right form, but anyways, if everyone is inssured it makes it less of a burden on the rest.......If you follow the money trail someone picks up the tab for those who cannot pay , also for those that mortgage thier homes to pay off thier medical bill and can't make it lose thier homes , again another burden on banks and so on.
But the way the constitution is set up , from my understanding, is it is based alot on personal freedom. Having to be imposed to get inssurance is imposing on that freedom , actually if you look further seems taxes might be added to that list.
The constitution was based imo on ideology of the times pre 1800's , today's American reality seems to be different , very different in need than it was then.
Is it unconstitutional?.....seems to be. One cannot look at one system of governing as perfect , there are good points and bad points in all.
Americans fear the word Socialism...........i say that loosely

 

[taxslave]

But the way the constitution is set up , from my understanding, is it is based alot on personal freedom. Having to be imposed to get inssurance is imposing on that freedom , actually if you look further seems taxes might be added to that list.
Americans fear the word Socialism...........i say that loosely

Personal freedom? Too bad our charter didn't include some of that.

 

[El Barto]

Freedom imo is a loosely used term.....just being part of society we lose certain freedom for obligations.

 

[TenPenny]

Dood! Who set up Homeland Security? Who passed the patriot Act? Who declared war on a sovereign nation under false pretenses?

It's somewhat funny to see Republicans suddenly worrying about personal freedom; wasn't the whole idea that terrorism was such a threat that all Americans were supposed to be happy to give up personal freedoms? Oh well, consistency has never been part of politics anywhere at any time.

 

[damngrumpy]

The argument that people are concerned about being forced to have a program because
their country is different in the way it thinks. The problem is a lot of Americans don't think
at all. They are stampeded by clever manipulating self interests, or the churches that keep
spouting off about freedoms they will lose. Many of those churches are in league with the
special interest groups. Special interests include those in the Insurance, medical fields and
the very rich who use behind the scenes influence to manipulate government policy and the
courts. Taking something to the US Courts is little more than a joke at best. I do understand
how the court system works and its first weakness is that it is presided over by elected
judges who are also manipulated by special interests. Someday when there is a judicial
system that operates on the basis of what is in fact in the public interest as a whole instead
of what is in the interest of the interests that elected them to office the country will be better off.
The world does enjoy a good laugh from time to time and the American political system and
the societal preoccupation with the silly is a spectacle that is on going.

 

[Walter]

Even if it were 10,000 new agents (which it wont be), hiring them for the purpose of giving taxpayers money in the form of tax credits from the health care law sounds acceptable.

Only someone living within the beltway would believe the IRS to be benevolent.

The problem is a lot of Americans don't think
at all.

Bigot.

 

[ironsides]

Dood! Who set up Homeland Security? Who passed the patriot Act? Who declared war on a sovereign nation under false pretenses?

Republicans are grabbing at straws to get dirt on Obama that Bush started under the Republican watch. But it is a mute point because there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, or Bush or Obama. The constitution is just a piece of paper. Dubbya was right. It means nothing to those who are really in control. Some day it might just sink in what is going on down there (and everywhere) if people would just stop getting caught up in petty emotionally charged issues that keep them blinded to what is really going on. You are not the land of the free. You are no different than we are - chattel, corporate assets whose only value to the ruling class is your slave labour to the machine. People have been whining and complaining for a hundred years and yet the situation just keeps getting worse. There is only a controlled illusion of freedom. Until that reality sinks in, we will all just go along complaining and getting deeper in dept and nothing will ever be done about it. Dept is slavery. Either get used to it or do something about it.

Who really cares who started it, who is going to stop it. I haven't heard anyone credible willing to abolish it.

 

[Cliffy]

Who really cares who started it, who is going to stop it. I haven't heard anyone credible willing to abolish it.

Could it be that you are listening to the wrong people? Are you expecting politicians to fix it? Your great great grand kids will still be waiting. Like I said, politicians are just well paid actors pretending that what they do is important. They have no real power or authority, they just do their masters bidding. What you need is a revolution and revolutionary leaders to put it together.

I abhor violence so I would prefer to make it a grass roots kind of peaceful thing, but the powers that be would not let that happen. Just like at the G8/G20 meetings in Toronto, and everywhere else, they send in their own agent provocateurs to make it look like the protesters are violent so they can crack down some more. No, I'm afraid that the only way to get rid of the real controllers is to start a military mutiny and lock them up. If you keep focusing on the politicians, you will get no where, which is the controllers plan. Politicians are just scape goats.

 

[ironsides]

Could it be that you are listening to the wrong people? Are you expecting politicians to fix it? Your great great grand kids will still be waiting. Like I said, politicians are just well paid actors pretending that what they do is important. They have no real power or authority, they just do their masters bidding. What you need is a revolution and revolutionary leaders to put it together.

I abhor violence so I would prefer to make it a grass roots kind of peaceful thing, but the powers that be would not let that happen. Just like at the G8/G20 meetings in Toronto, and everywhere else, they send in their own agent provocateurs to make it look like the protesters are violent so they can crack down some more. No, I'm afraid that the only way to get rid of the real controllers is to start a military mutiny and lock them up. If you keep focusing on the politicians, you will get no where, which is the controllers plan. Politicians are just scape goats.

I was never in favor of 'Homeland Security", leaders even those you may like do not say or do everything you would like. Now who ever allows it without at least trying to remove it will not be on my jump for joy list. Politicians caused the problem if they better find a way to solve it. We have just concluded a election and some who won promised a major revamping. Obama had his chance now he is just another token. We had our revolution in fact few of them, maybe it is time for some other country to seal their linage and being in this world with one. Who knows others may follow.

 

[CDNBear]

Bear, sounds paradoxal ....

Not at all.

not sure if it is used in the right form, but anyways, if everyone is inssured it makes it less of a burden on the rest.......

And you think that burden isn't already factored into the present system?

If you follow the money trail someone picks up the tab for those who cannot pay , also for those that mortgage thier homes to pay off thier medical bill and can't make it lose thier homes , again another burden on banks and so on.

Hence why I said medical care should be as it is in Canada, around the world.

People need to stop believing movies like "John Q" and so on. The American system isn't without its issues, but people are not being denied life saving operations, or turned away from ER's. That's illegal.

But the way the constitution is set up , from my understanding, is it is based alot on personal freedom. Having to be imposed to get inssurance is imposing on that freedom , actually if you look further seems taxes might be added to that list.

Taxes are permitted by the Constitution, for the effective operation of Gov't and Gov't services. Forcing people to buy private market products, is not. Obamacare is a sham. The insurance companies now have a captive market and Obama can claim a false victory.

The constitution was based imo on ideology of the times pre 1800's , today's American reality seems to be different , very different in need than it was then.

I agree, but that does not negate the framers intentions, nor the establishment of the Constitution and its benefits.

Americans fear the word Socialism...........i say that loosely

Because they've been programmed too. As soon as they learn to get by it, they could have a health care system like ours.

The argument that people are concerned about being forced to have a program because
their country is different in the way it thinks.

Not by much. Self interests are always important to the body of the country. Including Canadians.

The problem is a lot of Americans don't think at all.

Your posts come off like that all the time. Are you American?

They are stampeded by clever manipulating self interests, or the churches that keep
spouting off about freedoms they will lose. Many of those churches are in league with the
special interest groups.

You think this is an American phenomenon?

Special interests include those in the Insurance, medical fields and
the very rich who use behind the scenes influence to manipulate government policy and the
courts.

You think so do you?

Taking something to the US Courts is little more than a joke at best. I do understand
how the court system works and its first weakness is that it is presided over by elected
judges who are also manipulated by special interests. Someday when there is a judicial
system that operates on the basis of what is in fact in the public interest as a whole instead
of what is in the interest of the interests that elected them to office the country will be better off.

Like a "right" leaning Judge using the Constitution to find that same sex marriage is not only legal, but a human right? You mean that kind of public interest?

If you weren't so misinformed, your posts wouldn't be so insipid.

The world does enjoy a good laugh from time to time and the American political system and
the societal preoccupation with the silly is a spectacle that is on going.

Much like your uninformed posts.

 

[Tonington]

Aren't there penalties for not having your vehicle insured? The power to regulate interstate commerce is very broad in the eyes of the court... Anyways, Cuccinelli will spin this as a victory, but that would be pure spin. His lawsuit sought to have the entire Affordable Care Act overturned, and the only thing he got was the section on individual mandates, which may yet be overturned by higher courts. And as Icarus mentioned, the ACA has already been ruled constitutional twice by Federal judges in Michigan, and another one in Virginia.

 

[CDNBear]

Aren't there penalties for not having your vehicle insured?

Yep. Now stop and think for one second, about the monumental difference between driving and merely being, please.

That was a nice try though.

Well not really, but I'm in a generous mood today.

The power to regulate interstate commerce is very broad in the eyes of the court...

And has been defined by the frames as well as other Superior Court rulings.

And as Icarus mentioned, the ACA has already been ruled constitutional twice by Federal judges in Michigan, and another one in Virginia.

Your point?

How many times had the lower courts ruled against same sex marriage?

 

[Tonington]

Yep. Now stop and think for one second, about the monumental difference between driving and merely being, please.

I did...hence the following sentence about the broadness of the interstate commerce interpretation. As a follow-up, mandated individual health insurance is already the law in Massachusetts, and it survived court challenges too.

Your point?

That it was only a section that was overturned by one court, out of three challenges so far. So, I'm leaning towards constitutional, with perhaps one section being overturned, but I doubt even that will come to pass.

How many times had the lower courts ruled against same sex marriage?

:lol: Now stop and think about the monumental difference between marrying and healthcare delivery.

Nice try

 

[CDNBear]

I did...hence the following sentence about the broadness of the interstate commerce interpretation.

Negating the difference between being and the privilege of driving a car.

As a follow-up, mandated individual health insurance is already the law in Massachusetts, and it survived court challenges too.

You might want to examine the differences. As well as the burden the State had to absorb to make it viable.

Why not just create a health tax shared by business and individual citizens, and make health care accessible across the board?

Why make private markets richer, on the backs of the working class?

Why are you, a professed left leaning individual, promoting the forced enrichment of private insurance companies. while I, an accused Conservative is promoting public health care?

That it was only a section that was overturned by one court, out of three challenges so far. So, I'm leaning towards constitutional, with perhaps one section being overturned, but I doubt even that will come to pass.

You're likely right. As far as interpretations go, it's in the eye's of the beholder. I just highly doubt that this policy has anything to do with altruism or health care. It sounds a lot like a well disguised, mandated subsidy for the hurting insurance industry. At the peoples expense.

:lol: Now stop and think about the monumental difference between marrying and healthcare delivery.

You're not talking about health care delivery though.

Nice try

Quite.

 

[ironsides]

Aren't there penalties for not having your vehicle insured? The power to regulate interstate commerce is very broad in the eyes of the court... Anyways, Cuccinelli will spin this as a victory, but that would be pure spin. His lawsuit sought to have the entire Affordable Care Act overturned, and the only thing he got was the section on individual mandates, which may yet be overturned by higher courts. And as Icarus mentioned, the ACA has already been ruled constitutional twice by Federal judges in Michigan, and another one in Virginia.

Insurance laws vary State by State, and are not Federal laws.

"No, all states do not require car insurance but they do require financial responsibility to operate a vehicle on the roadway. While not all states require drivers to buy Liability insurance to show financial responsibility, 49 states (plus the District of Columbia) do. New Hampshire is the only state that does not have compulsory auto insurance liability laws, as of June 2010.
All 50 states have different requirements when it comes to auto insurance and the minimum insurance requirements. Almost every state requires you to have Bodily Injury Liability insurance and every states has financial responsibility laws that require you be able to have sufficient assets to pay for any liability you cause in an incident."

Obama care is a Federally Nationally mandated health insurance program, forcing every individual to be under it or be fined. The problem here is you cannot force the States (we are a Republic) require their citizens to subscribe to it, like auto insurance it is up to the States to set the requirements if any, Federally mandated health insurance is unconstitutional.

 

[DaSleeper]

Even in Canada Health insurance started in the '60s as a provincial mandate and it slowly evolved as a joint mandate between the the provinces and teritories and the federal...

Canada's Health Care System (Medicare) - Health Canada

I remember in the '60, having to see a doctor in Quebec, and had to pay cash, and then later getting reembursed by OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) and it's only very much later that one province's plan was recognized by all the provinces.

 

[ironsides]

Even in Canada Health insurance started in the '60s as a provincial mandate and it slowly evolved as a joint mandate between the the provinces and teritories and the federal...

Canada's Health Care System (Medicare) - Health Canada

I remember in the '60, having to see a doctor in Quebec, and had to pay cash, and then later getting reembursed by OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) and it's only very much later that one province's plan was recognized by all the provinces.

I'll admit it, I have been very lucky to have health insurance for myself and family, and anywhere we have traveled we were covered in civilian hospitals when the need came up. No doubt we will go thru growing pains with Obama care just like you did in the 60's forward and end up with something like you have now or even better. To soon, to fast is causing problems. Those that have insurance don't want to give up what they have thinking what they get will be worse and of course those who have no insurance would be more than happy with any insurance.

 

[TenPenny]

Even in Canada Health insurance started in the '60s as a provincial mandate and it slowly evolved as a joint mandate between the the provinces and teritories and the federal...

Canada's Health Care System (Medicare) - Health Canada

I remember in the '60, having to see a doctor in Quebec, and had to pay cash, and then later getting reembursed by OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) and it's only very much later that one province's plan was recognized by all the provinces.

And even now, sometimes you'll find doctors that won't recognize the Quebec plan, because they reimburse out of province treatments at a much lower rate, and some doctors don't like getting shafted by Quebec.

 

[ironsides]

What a waste of time, they know the Senate will reject or delay it and President Obama will veto it by chance it gets past the Senate. So many other things to get to work on.

WASHINGTON – Swiftly honoring a campaign pledge, pushed legislation to repeal the nation's year-old health care overhaul through the House Wednesday night, brushing aside implacable opposition in the Senate and a veto threat from President Barack Obama.
The 245-189 vote was largely along , and cleared the way for the second phase of the "repeal and replace" promise that victorious Republicans made to the voters last fall. GOP officials said that in the coming months, congressional committees will propose changes to the existing legislation, calling for elimination of a requirement for individuals to purchase coverage, for example, and recommending curbs on medical malpractice lawsuits.
House votes to repeal Obama's health care law - Yahoo! News