Health Care vote???

Starfall wrote:

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

The more I learn about this bill the more I hate what this country has become. Very few people in power are good people who care about average citizens. What a shame that it has come to this and I find it extremely discouraging.

This bill is NOT a step towards single-payer. It is the opposite. It cements insurance companies into our government, while they continue to take advantage of people for disgustingly large profits.

Agreed.

I really hope that this bill is not upheld by the constitution.

DIsagreed.

Article I, Sec 8, US Constitution: 8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Whether or not you agree with the excise tax or the mandate/tax alternative, the Constitution expressly provides for it.

Which is exactly why I said "I really hope"....and whether it's legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, I still believe it is wrong.

mb262200 wrote:

Also, the 8th amendment clearly states this:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The 8th amendment refers to matters of judicial proceedings, not legislative ones. "Bail", "fine" and "punishment" can only be meted out by the Judiciary, as per Article III of the Constitution.

Next question.

mb262200 wrote:

Starfall wrote:

mb262200 wrote:

According to the Tenth Amendment, the government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people (and even the states cannot alienate some of these). In modern times, the Commerce Clause has become one of the most frequently-used sources of Congress's power, and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the allowable scope of federal government.

And.... isn't the power to levy taxes and excises and all that stuff specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution, as I poined out earlier?

Next question.

I'm not talking about taxes. I'm talking about the feds (IRS) forcing a fine on people for not purchasing something, as in ....making it against the law. Government has no right in my opinion.

And please do not come back with the "yyou have to buy car insurance bit" we both know that is completely diferent.

Wrong. It's perfectly within the purvey of Congress as specifically defined in Article I Section 8 to impose duties, excises, levies, or whatever the hell you want to call it... to provide for the general welfare (in this case, health care).
Secondly, as far as the Commerce Clause, there's nearly 200 years of precedent where the Courts have been reluctant to limit the power of Congress here. Even Justice Scalia has stated, in Gonzales v Raich (2005), that Congress can regulate even non-economic activity if it has the ultimate purpose of regulating commerce.
Finally, the mandate won't kick in till 2014, and courts have traditionally refused to rule on matters until they become relevant.

But good luck convincing a Court of that. The only way these lawsuits will have a snowball's chance of succeeding is if the SCOTUS RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) start legislating from the bench again... and I seriously doubt even they would intrude upon the domain of Congress, especially since we're looking at 200 years of precedents.

Next question.

The attorney generals lawsuit is merely partisan politics and not necessarily a reflection of any legality. If you think our system has "law first" have a look back at the 2000 election, where partisan politics, dirty play and the Supreme court trumped the citizens finding out who really won an election.

mb262200 wrote:

Yes, you're right IF....they wanted to make a single payer sysem and impose the taxes to pay for it.

BUT, what you are saying has nothing to do with the government(IRS) forcing us (THE PEOPLE) to make a purchase or else we will be punished for it by law. You can spin it any way you want, but I don't believe that if this didn't have a chance in court then all in only one day after passing 14 attorney generals pursuit to file a lawsuit against it. I believe the Attorney Generals know the law better then you or I.

By the way....I see no question marks in my comments...therefore, I am not asking any questions.

FiveB247x wrote:

How many people are there that claim I don't want insurance compared to millions who do want it? If this is the discussion, then it really doesn't have a leg to stand on. Also, all of a sudden so many care about big government, budgets, debt, the corporate agenda and government ties... just a bunch of nonsense. There's been just as much funny business going on in government for decades, but all of a sudden people take notice... gimme a break.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Well I think there is an enormous difference between driving a car and simply being alive while you happen to live in America, and happen not to be Native American, and happen not to be religious.

I have health insurance and from my understanding this bill does not affect me at all.

But I think it is absolutely wrong to require someone to directly purchase something they do not want.

I'm under no requirement to purchase car insurance, UNLESS I want to drive.

I'm under no requirement to buy a stamp UNLESS I want a letter delivered.

Yet under this legislation many will be required to pay insurance companies for services they do not want (or in some cases do not need). What is their option? Honestly, what is their option? If they are alive they must pay insurance companies? Insane. And I'm no lawyer but it certainly doesn't sound constitutional to me.

But it sure sounds like a fine way to pick up a bunch of new customers for your business now doesn't it?

Whatever...at least people are taking notice