PelosiCare: A few details.

[CollinQuinn]

Then don't and propose that argument in court, we'll see if it flies

I'm sure someone will. Funny how the "party of little guy" is quite content to put that little guy in prison if he can't afford health insurance.

I see people claiming this is unconstitutional all the time, but they never explain what the heck they mean. Look, here's the way I see it. There's a bunch of old people who wear funny robes who tell me that it's constitutional. If you want to put on your nicest suit and tell them it ain't, then please proceed... but until you convince those nice gentlemen and ladies, this argument is irrelevant.

They've ruled things COnstitutional that are specifically forbidden in the Constitution, so wouldn't suprise me.

But, pray tell, where have they ruled that the fed can force you to buy a private companies product simply because you're breathing? And remember, this isn't comparable to car insurance.

 

[lordbt]

Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 3 & 18.

The purpose of The Constitution is to limit the power of the state. What you are advocating through your open ended reading of those two clauses is limitless power. How does what you advocate differ from the economic fascism of Mussolini's Corporate State?

 

[lordbt]

There's a bunch of old people who wear funny robes who tell me that it's constitutional.

Ever consider drawing your own conclusions? Thinking for yourself?

 

[Saving Hawaii]

I'm sure someone will. Funny how the "party of little guy" is quite content to put that little guy in prison if he can't afford health insurance.

Right...

You, as an American citizen, are granted the right to access emergency rooms at any time. You can call 911 and an ambulance will take you there double time. It's preposterous that you would decide that you "don't really need health insurance" knowing full well that if anything goes wrong, you'll pass the burden on to everyone else who pays for it. From a social welfare standpoint... that is, the total cost to society (to you and everyone else), it's recklessly inefficient. Guys like me support single payer health care not because we don't have health insurance (I get good coverage from my employer), but because we grasp that systems like the NHS or Canada's Medicare are far more efficient than the broken and bureaucratic private insurance system in the United States.

They've ruled things COnstitutional that are specifically forbidden in the Constitution, so wouldn't suprise me.

What have they ruled Constitutional that was specifically forbidden in the Constitution? You're making some very hefty accusations. Please extrapolate.

But, pray tell, where have they ruled that the fed can force you to buy a private companies product simply because you're breathing? And remember, this isn't comparable to car insurance.

Does it bear repeating something you've heard a thousand times before? As was written by many of the founding fathers and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, Article 1 - Section 8 - Clause 3 and 18 give very significant authority to the Federal Government.

I think the old saying goes "Only two things are guaranteed in life: death and taxes."

 

[Saving Hawaii]

Ever consider drawing your own conclusions? Thinking for yourself?

I mostly do what I want, mostly.

You should try parroting the Cato Institute a little less and drawing your own conclusions. Thinking for yourself.

Weird how that works.

 

[CollinQuinn]

You, as an American citizen, are granted the right to access emergency rooms at any time. You can call 911 and an ambulance will take you there double time. It's preposterous that you would decide that you "don't really need health insurance" knowing full well that if anything goes wrong, you'll pass the burden on to everyone else who pays for it. From a social welfare standpoint... that is, the total cost to society (to you and everyone else), it's recklessly inefficient. Guys like me support single payer health care not because we don't have health insurance (I get good coverage from my employer), but because we grasp that systems like the NHS or Canada's Medicare are far more efficient than the broken and bureaucratic private insurance system in the United States.

Well, what if I choose to pay for it out of my own pocket? What if I flat out can't afford it and can't qualify for government option? What if I'm young, don't need, don't want it, and also can't afford it?

And if you think private insurance is bureaucratic, what kind of head trauma did you suffer to think that government run health insurance would be any better? Long waits, rationing, government regulation of personal choices, smoking eating, exersizing, engaging in risky behaviors, ect will all become reality with government run healthcare.

 

[CollinQuinn]

What have they ruled Constitutional that was specifically forbidden in the Constitution? You're making some very hefty accusations. Please extrapolate.

Kelo v New London. Ruling that the government can take your property and give it to a private entity for the purposes of higher tax revenue despite the government being prohibited from taking your property and giving it to a private entity in the Constitution.

Does it bear repeating something you've heard a thousand times before? As was written by many of the founding fathers and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, Article 1 - Section 8 - Clause 3 and 18 give very significant authority to the Federal Government.

I think the old saying goes "Only two things are guaranteed in life: death and taxes."

Those clauses were never meant to give unlimited power to the federal government, and claiming so is bold faced lie. They don't have the authority to force you to buy a private companies product on the condition that you're alive.

Commerce clause, general welfare, and the power to tax, none of them gives the fed that kind of power, and only a gravely broken and political supreme court would rule in favor of such a thing. But the Court has been broken for some time, so it wouldn't surprise me if they did back the fed in that kind of power grab.

 

[nvxplorer]

I'm sure someone will. Funny how the "party of little guy" is quite content to put that little guy in prison if he can't afford health insurance.



They've ruled things COnstitutional that are specifically forbidden in the Constitution, so wouldn't suprise me.

But, pray tell, where have they ruled that the fed can force you to buy a private companies product simply because you're breathing? And remember, this isn't comparable to car insurance.

It's certainly is comparable to auto insurance in that both are mandates. The difference, as you state, is one involves driving and the other "breathing." What constitutional argument can be made with being alive? Your rights aren't being violated (or mandatory auto would be unconstitutional), and the government will use the Commerce Clause as the source of this power. I don't see what constitutional right is being violated because you're breathing.

 

[CollinQuinn]

It's certainly is comparable to auto insurance in that both are mandates. The difference, as you state, is one involves driving and the other "breathing." What constitutional argument can be made with being alive? Your rights aren't being violated (or mandatory auto would be unconstitutional),

My right to be free from unCOnstituonal government intrusion. It's up to the government to show how this is the responsibility and within the power of the fed.

and the government will use the Commerce Clause as the source of this power. I don't see what constitutional right is being violated because you're breathing.

Right to privacy. And of course they will use commerce, it's the mostly wildly misinterpreted and abused clause of the Constitution.

 

[nvxplorer]

My right to be free from unCOnstituonal government intrusion. It's up to the government to show how this is the responsibility and within the power of the fed.

No, it's not. Laws may face constitutional challenge after they're passed, not while they're still in Congress.

Right to privacy.

How are your privacy rights being violated? Doctor/patient confidentiality will still be law.

And of course they will use commerce, it's the mostly wildly misinterpreted and abused clause of the Constitution.

Yet, it has held up to scrutiny. All those judges and Justices over all those years, and the rulings have affirmed this broad governmental power. You may think the power is too broad. I may think the same. But the chance that this bill will fail a constitutional test is highly unlikely.

 

[CollinQuinn]

No, it's not. Laws may face constitutional challenge after they're passed, not while they're still in Congress.

Yea, when it's in the courts, it's up for the government to proves it's case, not for me to prove how it violates my rights. Try and keep up here.

How are your privacy rights being violated? Doctor/patient confidentiality will still be law.

Interfering in my private life and requiring me to show proof of health insurance and throwing me in jail if I don't have it is all an invasion of privacy, a major one. Much, much worse than some NSA wiretapping.

Yet, it has held up to scrutiny. All those judges and Justices over all those years, and the rulings have affirmed this broad governmental power. You may think the power is too broad. I may think the same. But the chance that this bill will fail a constitutional test is highly unlikely.

Then there should be massive riots in the streets. That the government would jail you for not buying health insruance should stir violent anger in every American.

 

[nvxplorer]

Yea, when it's in the courts, it's up for the government to proves it's case, not for me to prove how it violates my rights. Try and keep up here.

I am keeping up. It's your argument, so yes, it is up to you to show how the bill violates your rights.

Interfering in my private life and requiring me to show proof of health insurance and throwing me in jail if I don't have it is all an invasion of privacy, a major one. Much, much worse than some NSA wiretapping.

If any of this were unconstitutional, throwing you in jail for not providing proof of auto insurance would be a violation of privacy. Yet, it's not.

Then there should be massive riots in the streets. That the government would jail you for not buying health insruance should stir violent anger in every American.

Violent anger?

 

[CollinQuinn]

am keeping up. It's your argument, so yes, it is up to you to show how the bill violates your rights.

Double standard, how come I have to show how it violates my rights, yet you don't have to show how congress has the power to do this sort of thing?

If any of this were unconstitutional, throwing you in jail for not providing proof of auto insurance would be a violation of privacy. Yet, it's not.

Completely different things. You don't have to own a car. The pre-condition for the health mandate is that you're breathing.

Violent anger?

Yes, and 100% justified. If these people seek to put us in jail for non-compliance with their unConstitutional power grab, their tyranny should be met with as much resistance as necessary to maintain our lives and liberty.

 

[nvxplorer]

Double standard, how come I have to show how it violates my rights, yet you don't have to show how congress has the power to do this sort of thing?

I already did. The government will use the Commerce Clause. It always has. The Courts have held it up.

Completely different things. You don't have to own a car. The pre-condition for the health mandate is that you're breathing.

And this is related to privacy in what way?

Yes, and 100% justified. If these people seek to put us in jail for non-compliance with their unConstitutional power grab, their tyranny should be met with as much resistance as necessary to maintain our lives and liberty.

Troubling.

 

[CollinQuinn]

I already did. The government will use the Commerce Clause. It always has. The Courts have held it up.

As have I, privacy trumps commerce, least that would be the case if we had a decent government that cared at all about the Constitution.

And this is related to privacy in what way?

It should be obvious. Financial and personal privacy.

Troubling.

What's troubling is these cockroaches running away with our country, taking more power for themselves, turning us into slaves.

 

[nvxplorer]

As have I, privacy trumps commerce, least that would be the case if we had a decent government that cared at all about the Constitution.



It should be obvious. Financial and personal privacy.



What's troubling is these cockroaches running away with our country, taking more power for themselves, turning us into slaves.

Sorry to see that you're so angry.

I had a friend back in the early '90s who was compulsively angry at Clinton. We all knew the true source of his anger, and it wasn't politics. Not saying you're not genuinely angry at the government, but you remind me of my friend.

 

[GrannyHope]

If this passes therr is a good chance the speaker and her board of panelists will get me killed! Its super scary! I was almost crying the other nite when I heard Ms. Palin saying that she didnt rescind her statement and by golly I still trust her.! Much more than i do Pelosi.

How it will work i think, is if there are too many seniors and due to the strain of retiring baby boomers, they will send a dozen or so off to a panel. then while at the panel they will judge our usefullness to society and if we aren't "able bodied workers", off to the lethal injection station we go!!! We must do anything we can to stop this evil legilature! Democrats will be into human cloning in a few years too, i fear! They'll create a perfect race and well we will be out of luck if we arent in cahoots with the new order!

 

[CollinQuinn]

I had a friend back in the early '90s who was compulsively angry at Clinton. We all knew the true source of his anger, and it wasn't politics. Not saying you're not genuinely angry at the government, but you remind me of my friend.

I have little else to be angry about. But when you actually pay attention to what these cockroaches do, and understand their corruption, it's hard not to be angry.

How it will work i think, is if there are too many seniors and due to the strain of retiring baby boomers, they will send a dozen or so off to a panel. then while at the panel they will judge our usefullness to society and if we aren't "able bodied workers", off to the lethal injection station we go!!! We must do anything we can to stop this evil legilature! Democrats will be into human cloning in a few years too, i fear! They'll create a perfect race and well we will be out of luck if we arent in cahoots with the new order!

And I thought I was out there. They're not going to stick a needle in your arm or a bullet it your head. They'll simply ration the amount of care you can have if you're using government health insurance. There's limited money, limited resources, doctors, ect. Why spend a whole lot of money giving a 75 year old a hip replacement when you can give early treatment of cancer to a dozen youger people for the same price.

 

[Belk]

If this passes therr is a good chance the speaker and her board of panelists will get me killed! Its super scary! I was almost crying the other nite when I heard Ms. Palin saying that she didnt rescind her statement and by golly I still trust her.! Much more than i do Pelosi.

How it will work i think, is if there are too many seniors and due to the strain of retiring baby boomers, they will send a dozen or so off to a panel. then while at the panel they will judge our usefullness to society and if we aren't "able bodied workers", off to the lethal injection station we go!!! We must do anything we can to stop this evil legilature! Democrats will be into human cloning in a few years too, i fear! They'll create a perfect race and well we will be out of luck if we arent in cahoots with the new order!

What I find truly scary is that people are credulous enough to believe this tripe.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

If this passes therr is a good chance the speaker and her board of panelists will get me killed! Its super scary! I was almost crying the other nite when I heard Ms. Palin saying that she didnt rescind her statement and by golly I still trust her.! Much more than i do Pelosi.

How it will work i think, is if there are too many seniors and due to the strain of retiring baby boomers, they will send a dozen or so off to a panel. then while at the panel they will judge our usefullness to society and if we aren't "able bodied workers", off to the lethal injection station we go!!! We must do anything we can to stop this evil legilature! Democrats will be into human cloning in a few years too, i fear! They'll create a perfect race and well we will be out of luck if we arent in cahoots with the new order!

I can't tell for the life of me if this is serious or satire.

You're worried about rationing? Well, we have rationing right now. See those pieces of paper in your wallet with dead Presidents on them? Those are your ration cards. Don't have enough? You don't get served.

ANY system is going to have rationing. And considering how high a percentage of health care resources are input in the last six months of live, yes, I think end-of-life issues are going to have to be discussed. I know it's a touchy topic, and understandably so, but in the real world, it has to be brought up.

However, I think end-of-life decisions should be left between individuals and their families and physicians. And I do believe in VOLUNTARY--note that important qualifier, VOLUNTARY--euthanasia for those who are terminally ill, in chronic pain or unable to care for themselves. I as a free person should be able to create a living will where I specify I don't want to spend the last months of my life tottering and unable to care for myself, knowing I'm going to die yet too miserable to derive any joy from living.