Discussion in 'Members' Lounge' started by Briansol, Aug 3, 2010.
FOXNews.com - Judge Gives Virginia OK to Press On With Health Care Lawsuit Against Feds
now we just need the rest to do the same.
The only Rush you should be listening to is "Tom Sawyer", not a raving "conservative" character.
The arguments for this are that the enumerated powers of the federal government allow for regulation of "interstate commerce" (in this case pharmaceuticals, etc) so the government's power is sufficiently broad. The reason this penalty is a "tax" and not called by what it functionally is, a fine, is because it was written to look as constitutional as possible (congress may levy taxes, Article One).
The problems with this bill are numerous. First, those in favor of universal health care see it as a right, and I suppose they are entitled to their opinion. But, Brown v. Board of Education held that not even basic elementary education was a right. While the court agreed that education was an essential part of what makes civilization possible in America, it could not be seen to be a right because it was something that had to be provided by the government. Notice that speech, assembly, religion, basically any fundamental right you can think of, they are all similar in the fact that the government must act to remove those rights, not to provide for them. Healthcare is requires positive action by the government as well, therefore under the Brown v. Board test it fails to be a legal right.
There are also problems with the Equal Protection Clause of the XIVth Amendment. The Healthcare reform package exempts religious groups like the Amish from the tax based on their religious beliefs concerning insurance. The problem is in doing so you create two groups which are unequal, based purely on their religious affiliation. To avoid this conflict the government would have to allow anyone, based on their stated religious beliefs, to receive a healthcare tax exemption status. In doing so there would not be enough people to fund it.
In the end this entire thing will come down to the test the Supreme Court applies. Anti-Healthcare people will want strict scrutiny, the government will want something less than that. As this law makes it mandatory for Americans to purchase something I am betting the court Applies strict scrutiny and the government loses 5-4.
No worries, as I was listning to him I was checking out articles on CNN, The Huffington Post etc. Every side lies and the more information you can gather the better. Personally I dont have a staff of paid researches to spend ours upon hours to look into one candidate.
Silver you outlined it perfectly.
I believe in unlimited, free healthcare for those legitimately unable to afford monthly premiums, subject to the following conditions:
1.) You do not smoke cigarettes or marijuana
2.) You do not test positive for illegal drugs
3.) You do not take prescription medication w/out a prescription
4.) You do not drink alcohol
5.) You are not a cable tv subscriber
6.) You are not a high speed internet subscriber
7.) Your cellphone's monthly bill is under 60/mo
If you life is a no frills existence and you cannot afford healthcare premiums, it should be free.
add to that list:
8) you don't have a car valued over $1000 -ish or more than 1 car per worker in household
9) you don't have name-brand clothes/jackets/sneakers in your household
both my mirages are valued at over 1K by insurance... even though i paid less than that for one of them. so thats no go.
You also don't deserve free healthcare.
i second this. i dont think people should expect the government to take care of them.
i also forgot the government should not be able to make you have healthcare. and for people who want to argue about auto insurance and health insurance, theres a difference.
Prop C passes overwhelmingly
<---Sub'd for some reading later.
Separate names with a comma.