Federal judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional

[badger6]

In order to enroll in school I was required to get a vaccine for Polio.  My parents were REQUIRED BY LAW to purchase the vaccine. 

You are required to get vaccinated in order to protect other people from catching a disease. Just like you are required to get liability insurance to protect the other drivers on the road. Liability doesn't cover you if you get in an accident.

Dad made too much money for us to go to the free health clinic. 

If I ran around nude...i would be arrested for public indecency.   The gov't can pass a law requiring I purchase clothing (and wear them).

 

Again, this protects other people from having to look at you, lol. You can go naked as much as you want in your home, you never have to wear clothes in your entire life !!!

Gov't can require I pay taxes. 

There is a law requiring I save for retirement.  Or is social security unconstitutional too?   

Actually, I believe both to be unconstitutional. How constitutional is paying social security and not getting any by the time I am eligible to receive it ?

Reread the Constitution and realize that it grants Congress the power to force people to do things they may not want to because of necessity.

Forcing me to buy health care is not a necessity. Too bad everyone arguing for this crapola doesn't realize that your rights are being eroded on a daily basis by this bloated behemoth of a government that knows best. And people wonder why there is such a deficit.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Actually, I believe both to be unconstitutional.

No point in having a conversation with you.  Social Security is constitutional.  Fact. That is not an opinion that is a fact. 

If you can't distinguish the two and say why Social Security is constitutional while Universal Heath Care is not, you have absolutely no argument.     

[badger6]

No point in having a conversation with you.  Social Security is constitutional.  Fact. That is not an opinion that is a fact. 

If you can't distinguish the two and say why Social Security is constitutional while Universal Heath Care is not, you have absolutely no argument.     

Ha, ha, ha, you funny. No point having a conversation with me ?? Don't respond then. SS may be legal, that doesn't mean that it is constitutional however. The fact that the constitution doesn't grant the federal government those powers would probably be a sufficient reason. Tenth Amendment – "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". That seems to be simple enough to understand. Not to mention the fact that Roosevelt had to threaten to replace certain judges (ie- the ones the disagreed with him) of the supreme court in order to get SS passed could have had something to do with it.

It is about as constitutional as the federal reserve bank, eavesdropping on phone calls, intercepting emails, and water boarding. The government does what it wants when it wants to, that is the problem with this country. There seems to be a lot more to this stuff than you care to admit   

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

SS may be legal, that doesn't mean that it is constitutional however

    *  Helvering vs. Davis.
    *  Steward Machine Co. vs. Davis,
    *  Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper,

Means it is not only legal but Constitutional.   

It is about as constitutional as the federal reserve bank, eavesdropping on phone calls, intercepting emails, and water boarding

The first three are constitutional.  The last one I am not sure if has been ruled on yet.  If universal health care is as constitutional as the federal reserve bank...it is completely constitutional.  And this lower courts decision will be overruled 9-0. 

[badger6]

    *  Helvering vs. Davis.
    *  Steward Machine Co. vs. Davis,
    *  Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper,

Means it is not only legal but Constitutional.   

The first three are constitutional.  The last one I am not sure if has been ruled on yet.  If universal health care is as constitutional as the federal reserve bank...it is completely constitutional.  And this lower courts decision will be overruled 9-0. 

^^^ Picking and choosing which parts of my post that you want to respond to, ha ha.

I guess the tenth amendment means nothing, we should just burn it. I guess that every thing the government does is constitutional huh ? You look at the results of the above court cases but not the situations surrounding the cases. One day living in this country will be like living in Russia or China, then see how ya like it !!!

BTW, why do we pass laws that the majority of Americans don't want ? Could it be that they don't care what we want ?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

^^^ Picking and choosing which parts of my post that you want to respond to, ha ha.

Didn't see any point in responding to the rest of the BS.

I guess the tenth amendment means nothing, we should just burn it.

I have never said that.  But I guess under your logic we should burn Article III and replace it with "constitutionality shall determined by badger6."

I guess that every thing the government does is constitutional huh ?

Not at all.  Whatever the Supreme Court says is constitutional is constitutional.  Government has done plenty which is unconstitutional.  In fact, plenty of S. Ct. case are ones in which the Court tells the gov't to stop doing something that is unconstitutional. 

You look at the results of the above court cases but not the situations surrounding the cases. One day living in this country will be like living in Russia or China, then see how ya like it !!!

Not responding to above blither.  Because its blither. 

BTW, why do we pass laws that the majority of Americans don't want ? Could it be that they don't care what we want ?

CNN Poll:

"In general, would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government's influence over the country's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans?" Americans favor government intervention in the health system by 69%-29%.

"In general, would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government's influence over the health care you and your family receive in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans?" When it involves their own care and their families, approval is still high, but a bit lower: 63%-36%.

"Do you think the federal government should guarantee health care for all Americans, or don't you think so?" Americans favor guaranteed health care for all, by a margin of 62%-38%. 

So I am not sure what your strawman comment has to do with the Heath Care debate. 

[Dave Gray]

"Constitutional" doesn't mean only what's specifically stated in the Constitution.  It is also determined by court cases, which become constitutional law.

The health care mandate is definitely constitutional.  Why wouldn't it be?

It is very similar to auto insurance.  Because we have laws that require aid to be given to the sick, we are stuck with the bill one way or the other.  So, mandating health insurance for others IS protecting you.  ....just like liability auto insurance for others is protecting you.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

The health care mandate is definitely constitutional. 

That's a little strong.  While I expect that the justices will affirm its constitutionality it doesn't qualify as a definitely constitutional.   Social Security is definitely constitutional; universal health care probably is constitutional. 

[Frimp]

"Constitutional" doesn't mean only what's specifically stated in the Constitution.  It is also determined by court cases, which become constitutional law.

The health care mandate is definitely constitutional.  Why wouldn't it be?

It is very similar to auto insurance.  Because we have laws that require aid to be given to the sick, we are stuck with the bill one way or the other.  So, mandating health insurance for others IS protecting you.  ....just like liability auto insurance for others is protecting you.

Auto insurance is not mandatory. The government doesn't force you to drive a car.

As for social security, think of it like this. The government says it will take money from you and invest it, and when you retire, you will have a nice fund built up.

Bernie Madoff said the same thing, and did the same thing the government is doing with social security. No one on this board will ever see a dime that they put into SS. So, it was stolen. The only difference is that Madoff is in jail.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Bernie Madoff said the same thing, and did the same thing the government is doing with social security. No one on this board will ever see a dime that they put into SS. So, it was stolen. The only difference is that Madoff is in jail.

Did you just compare a criminal with a program that has paid out trillions of dollars in benefits to millions of retires, disabled works, widows and children going back to the 1930s?

I am willing to bet everyone on this board has a family member who has or does receive benefits from the program.

Without some changes (either by increasing tax rates or decrease of benefits the program will run into problem in about 25 years and be forced to reduce benefits or increase taxes.)

I will start collecting from SS well before that so your statement that no one will see a dime is quite false. 

[Spider-Dan]

Social Security has been determined to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.  You may be familiar with that entity; they are the group of judges who decide what is and is not constitutional.  It says so in the Constitution.

Sitting around and attempting to argue that Social Security is NOT constitutional is a complete waste of time.  YOU ARE WRONG.  This matter was put to rest decades ago.

If you are such a fervent state of denial that you STILL don't accept the constitutionality of Social Security, of course you aren't going to accept the constitutionality of a health care tax.  And the "mandate" is exactly that, a tax; if you don't have health care, you pay more at tax time, and that's it.  You are not required to purchase health care.  If you are uncertain as to the difference, try attempting to drive a car without liability insurance (or the necessary bond, depending on your jurisdiction) and see if a static fine is the only repercussion.

My question to the Social Security deniers is: why do you even care about what's happening with health care in the court system?  I mean, clearly you have chosen to ignore the verdict of the Supreme Court when it comes to Social Security, so why do you care what they end up saying about health care?  You've obviously already made up your mind, and you seem happy to simply ignore the actual process laid out in the Constitution for determining what laws are and are not constitutional.

In short, if your only response to "The health care 'mandate' is no more unconstitutional than Social Security's 'mandate'" is "Social Security is unconstitutional too!", you're already done.  There really isn't anything more to add when that is your position.

[badger6]

There is a law requiring I save for retirement.  Or is social security unconstitutional too?   

Come on guys, you can do better than that, ha ha. As you can see from the post above, I didn't bring up Social Security at all. I simply stated my opinion on the subject. I don't expect you to agree with it whatsoever. I have done some research on certain topics and I agree with you in principle. But things aren't as black and white as you make them out to be. Did you know that Roosevelt had to stack the deck and threaten to replace the sitting justices in order to get SS passed ? But like I said, I didn't bring up SS, only gave my opinion on the topic as it was presented to me.

I certainly hope no one is getting personal with this. We all have opinions. And maybe not here, but there are plenty of people that do agree with me, more than you think. I have these types of discussions all the time and people tend to take it personal for some reason. Got another one going on about why the civil war was fought. Its even better than this one, ha ha ha.

[Frimp]

Did you just compare a criminal with a program that has paid out trillions of dollars in benefits to millions of retires, disabled works, widows and children going back to the 1930s?

I am willing to bet everyone on this board has a family member who has or does receive benefits from the program.

Without some changes (either by increasing tax rates or decrease of benefits the program will run into problem in about 25 years and be forced to reduce benefits or increase taxes.)

I will start collecting from SS well before that so your statement that no one will see a dime is quite false. 

I didn't know you were that old. I'm 37, and I know I'll never see any of what I paid into SS. So, is it ok that people who are old now get what they paid but I don't? Yes I did compare a criminal to what the government has done with SS. I look at it as it being stolen from me. How would you describe it?

As for mandated health care, I think it is unconstitutional. But, we'll have to wait and see how the Supreme Court votes, and I'm not holding my breath on being happy with their ruling.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I didn't know you were that old. I'm 37, and I know I'll never see any of what I paid into SS.

That is absolutely not true.  The worst case estimates is you will see benefits that is 25% less than the current level (adjusted for inflation).   

[Frimp]

That is absolutely not true.  The worst case estimates is you will see benefits that is 25% less than the current level (adjusted for inflation).   

I'll believe it when I see it. But why should I be happy getting 25% less than you? Its still the same thing as stealing.