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.
The "concept" of single payer health insurance may not be unconstitutional, but forced participation and the elimination of private insurance would be problematic.
All of human history says that you're wrong about this.
The most oppressive states in the last 100 years were/are Soviet Union, China, N Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.......
Can't say that about a city council.
It's always been like that.
It's easier to oppress people if you don't know them.
And of course, the best of examples of local (i.e., small) governments oppressing their constituents are the Jim Crow laws. These were local laws passed by local politicians designed to oppress black citizens who lived in their local jurisdictions.
Blacks would have been better off had there been no governments in the South in the 1960s.
Americans use health insurance as a communal payment system rather than true insurance. Do you file a claim with your auto insurer when you change your oil, your tiers, etc? Why not let market forces drive prices down for a change?
A synonym for Big Government is centralized control. History is full of examples - past and present - where this was tried and failed. Proponents of such control should move to one of these many third world utopias to experience it for themselves. On the other hand, there's only one place to live if you prefer a constitutional democracy with power vested in the people and limited government - the gool ol' USA.
A synonym for Big Government is centralized control. History is full of examples - past and present - where this was tried and failed. Proponents of such control should move to one of these many third world utopias to experience it for themselves. On the other hand, there's only one place to live if you prefer a constitutional democracy with power vested in the people and limited government - the gool ol' USA.
LOL...so you prefer decentralized control? How's that supposed to work? You're being controlled from the periphery?
The "concept" of single payer health insurance may not be unconstitutional, but forced participation and the elimination of private insurance would be problematic.
What makes it unconstitutional is the penalty/"excise tax" for not obtaining insurance. Any time there is punishment imposed by legislation, without the due process of the courts being involved, it becomes a Bill of Attainder. Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the US Constitution specifically prohibits Bills of Attainder.
The "concept" of single payer health insurance may not be unconstitutional, but forced participation and the elimination of private insurance would be problematic.
It would be constitutional under the Tax Clause as everyone would have to pay for it rather than being forced to purchase a private service by the US government (i.e. Obamacare) which seems blatantly unconstutional to me.
LOL...so you prefer decentralized control? How's that supposed to work? You're being controlled from the periphery?
Actually, I'd prefer no to be controlled at all. Of course that would require me to take responsibility for my own actions and be self reliant. I'm very comfortable with both of these concepte. In my experience advocates for Big Government are often looking to impose their views on others or looking for someone else to pay the bills.
Americans use health insurance as a communal payment system rather than true insurance. Do you file a claim with your auto insurer when you change your oil, your tiers, etc? Why not let market forces drive prices down for a change?
I think a market based solution to health care would be even more controversial than Obamacare, like rapidly increasing the number of H1-Bs for doctors to drive their wages down (as was done in the computer industry) and ending quotas limiting the number of medical students in the US.
It would be constitutional under the Tax Clause as everyone would have to pay for it rather than being forced to purchase a private service by the US government (i.e. Obamacare) which seems blatantly unconstutional to me.
I don't know what you mean by "Tax Clause."
In any case, the notion that the federal government can unilaterally declare health insurance a "right" scares the hell out of me.
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.
