Yet people (the president included) continue to claim that a FEDERAL mandate to buy insurance is no different than being required to cover your car. (Completely ignoring that you have to BUY a car before you must get insurance…the govt’s basically saying they own your body…insure it or be taxed)
So isn’t a FEDERAL mandate unconstitutional unless you plan on writing an amendment to the Constitution so that such a mandate is in accordance with the Tenth Amendment??
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27384.html
The questions from ABC’s George Stephanopoulos highlighted a politically dangerous new aspect of the health reform debate for Obama – as critics from Republican leaders to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say his reform proposals amount to a middle-class tax increase. Obama promised during the campaign that Americans earning less than 0,000 a year would not see any tax increases from an Obama administration.
Obama strongly denied that the mandate amounts to a tax increase – saying it was no different than requiring people to have auto insurance and charging a penalty if they don’t. He also said it was important for everyone to have insurance so that people who do carry insurance don’t have to shoulder the load for people who don’t. The excise tax is designed as an enforcement mechanism to ensure people will carry insurance.
train……….thanx for the info.
levon………..thank you for pointing that out.
Levon the Man 6:20 pm on September 28, 2009
Yes you’re right but the constitution is flawed in this area according to the re-distributor in chief.
“And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.”
> " but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted" < Wake up people! He is saying that this IS the "flaw" in our constitution!
iamct01 6:20 pm on September 28, 2009
Becasue the hospital will sue you for the money just like a car insurance company will sue you without insurance and those court cases cost the tax payers money. But thanks for playing.
[O]peration [I]raqi [L]iberation 6:20 pm on September 28, 2009
It’s not a matter of whether or not it’s done at a state or federal level. It’s more of a matter of if you don’t have auto insurance you can simply not drive. If you’re required to have health insurance but don’t, you can’t exactly stop living. If it’s going to be compulsory a single payer system is the only way to go. In fact the single payer system is the only way to go anyways.
mopar Mike aka tea party mobster 6:20 pm on September 28, 2009
Bravo ! I couldn’t agree more. God bless.
Max 6:20 pm on September 28, 2009
Yes, it is unconstitutional. Just as it is unconstitutional to create a welfare state funded by increased taxes on a select portion of society.
Train of Consequences (matthew) 6:20 pm on September 28, 2009
They don’t consider that you don’t have to drive.
From some legal stuff I’ve been reading it seems that mandating the purchase of a private health insurance plan may not hold up in court. Mandating the purchase of a public option however likely would hold up in court.
justine 6:20 pm on September 28, 2009
Ya thanks Levon for stealing my thunder ! And the Libs always lie and say Bush said it was piece of paper well Obama and crew want to wipe our azzes with it.
Boomer Wisdom 6:20 pm on September 28, 2009
Properly explained. Good job.
The Federal Government is in violation of the 10th Amendment.
If Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, (The Commerce Clause) is interpreted as liberals and socialists wish, then Bill of Rights and, in fact, the entire Constitution, are void and the Congress has total power to do whatever it wishes. This clearly was not the intent of the Founders.
I wish citizens would read this document and understand it before they give up our liberty.
Yeah, Butt 6:20 pm on September 28, 2009
’cause it’s a cheap out. You dont HAVE to drive a car. I know several city dwellers that dont have them.
out2lunch4now2 6:20 pm on September 28, 2009
Ignorance.
I applaud everyone here who mentioned the Constitution of the United States.
Moody Red, American Patriot 6:20 pm on September 28, 2009
It is unconstitutional, as I would like to know what gives the government the authority over health care in the United states?
James Madison said, " The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction," and that he could not lay his finger on the power that allowed Congress to expend their constituents money on objects of benevolence.
Shouldn’t this debate begin on a foundation of authority?
Car insurance is a whole different matter.
MR
Dot 6:20 pm on September 28, 2009
I did that once on this forum.
Big mistake.
I was trying to make a "snowball effect" point (asking the government to foot the bill for A… sets a prescient for the the government paying B, C & D… etc.). In this case asking the federal government to foot the bill for health insurance could easily lead to other public-option initiatives. Or at least the expectation of those proposals. I focused on auto since it is already a requirement.
And then I discovered that there is public option flood insurance… and that auto requirements are completely different than what is being proposed… and of course that owning a car is not mandatory… and that the premiums work differently.. and that it is a states issue… and all-in-all that I hadn’t thoroughly researched the topic. I’m guessing anyone else who compares the two are in the same under-researched boat that I am.
Anwyay I failed. Miserably. And my Q went off in a completely strange direction.
dana 6:20 pm on September 28, 2009
Becasue the hospital will sue you for the money just like a car insurance company will sue you without insurance and those court cases cost the tax payers money. That’s why you need health insurance. In the end, it still has an effect on our economy.