Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, your example presented it as a right. Don't present something you'd later have to run from. Not that it would be the first time.
How is paying for something that is not a right, unconstitutional?
Paying for something that is not a right is a matter of indifference to the COTUS. In fact, I'd say the Constitution's voice in the matter might sound like this: "It's your money, you earned it. Spend it any way you like."
The same freedoms you and I have: Free speech, the right to assemble, the right to a speedy and fair trial by jury.... There is no right to be free from disease.
The government has an obligation to provide for the general welfare of its people. Every democratic government on the planet, including ours, recognizes this fundamental obligation of government. A sick nation is a nation at risk, a nation that is insecure. Is that what you want for yourself and your children? If people are dying because healthcare is unaffordable, then we have a serious national security issue that must be addressed.
That's a splendid argument for privatizing health care. Welcome to the light, my friend. When medicare/caid sets the price basis for health care, every doc gets pretty much the same fee whether their in demand or not. let market forces take over and docs will compete, either by price or by reputation, for business.
lol...Sounds like an argument we've heard before...ahh yes the Banks. Look how that turned out. Oh wait, health insurers too...we know how that turned out as well. It is only now illegal to deny insurance for pre-existing conditions as well as drop folks from the rolls.
Some regulatory force was needed. The market is single-mindedly focused on one thing - service as it relates to maximum profit. Period.
Balance is a necessity and we only achieve it through prudent regulation with issues this large.
Even if you obviously think that other people's happiness is not worth the money, companies also benefit from healthy staff...
And who says what is a right, anyway? Many laws and constitutions were written when health care was no issue, yet.
Since people have no right to work, either, nor a right to food, you are taking people's fate out of their own hands and making them dependent on luck, welfare, etc.
Health care has been an issue since the days of Moses Maimonides. You and others of similar opinion are confusing rights with entitlements. We are free to decide, as a nation, that it is worth the public expense (or, presumably, not) to reimburse health care institutions for the expenses of care for those unable to pay. We already do that, to the tune of many, many billions of dollars a year. (That's pretty damned generous if you ask me.) But the decision to pay someone's doctor bills with public mony as an entitlement does not create a right to that money any more than my giving money to charity entitles them to expect me to pay whatever they want whenever they want it.
The question before the house is whether it is Constitutional for the Federal government in our Federalist nation to compel individuals to purchase health insurance as a condition of citizenship.
You're confusing government regulation of industry and environment with individual mandates. What commercial product can the government presently force you to buy as a condition to being a citizen. (As opposed to driving on state roads, for example, which is a privilege not a right)?
No sir. The new law is regulating the insurance industry, and mandating them to provide insurance for those who previous could not afford it or were previously denied because of pre-existing conditions. And yes, that mandate requires everyone to be insured in the same way that every state requires its citizens to have auto insurance as a requirement for driving a car on the roads. That requirement came about because the Federal government mandated it by threatening loss of Federal highway dollars to those that did not require it.
The fact is that it is constitutional to mandate that everyone have health insurance, and is, in fact, the only way everyone is going to get covered. And by the way, I've yet to see anywhere in the law where it says that you will lose your citizenship if you aren't covered.
Paying for something that is not a right is a matter of indifference to the COTUS. In fact, I'd say the Constitution's voice in the matter might sound like this: "It's your money, you earned it. Spend it any way you like."
That is now how commerce clause applies.
Anyway, if it ain't a right, the government has the authority to regulate it.
Non-sequitur. The priority of corporations is to make a profit. This goes for healthcare providers as well as airlines, car factories, etc. In other words, providing everyone with affordable healthcare is NOT a priority for either providers or insurers.
Wrong. We have only to look at things like cell phones and digital cameras to see that the real money is made once something becomes affordable enough that most everyone can have it. When there are profits to be made there is competition for business. When there's competition, prices go down.
Not true, I do not have to buy a "green toilet", I can keep the one in my 70 yr. old home. I do not have to drink treated water, I can have a well dug.
In most large cities, you cannot have a dug well. You have to be connected to the municipal water supply. And take it from a geologist who has spent his life collecting and analyzing ground water samples in 13 states, you DON'T want to drink from a residential water well in a large city. Where I live, they aren't even allowed any more.
Quote:
Local building codes and federal mandates to purchase an item are not the same thing. As a US citizen to have the force of the IRS upon you (read take your home & property for non-compliance) for not participating in dictated private commerce is NOT Constitutional.
The Federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Period.
Health care has been an issue since the days of Moses Maimonides. You and others of similar opinion are confusing rights with entitlements. We are free to decide, as a nation, that it is worth the public expense (or, presumably, not) to reimburse health care institutions for the expenses of care for those unable to pay. We already do that, to the tune of many, many billions of dollars a year. (That's pretty damned generous if you ask me.) But the decision to pay someone's doctor bills with public mony as an entitlement does not create a right to that money any more than my giving money to charity entitles them to expect me to pay whatever they want whenever they want it.
The question before the house is whether it is Constitutional for the Federal government in our Federalist nation to compel individuals to purchase health insurance as a condition of citizenship.
Well, I have a different attitude. I want everybody to be guaranteed they will receive all necessary medical treatment when they need it, regardless of their savings or whatever.
How that is achieved, well, I am sure there are various ways, if there is a will.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
