The reason why people will be required to have coverage is because it will help hold down costs. This is something other countries have learned ahead of us. The bigger the pool, the lower the costs. And if you lower the costs, you can cover everybody and you can provide more health services. You also keep the cost for the very poor down (=fewer taxes). The other reason is that people like to think they are healthy and don't need insurance, but then they suddenly get diagnosed with cancer or multiple sclerosis, or they fall down the stairs. They end up in the emergency room or go bankrupt and guess who pays the bill, which is usually higher now than it would have been if they had gone to the doctor before the diagnosis or before the broken bone set itself wrong. They haven't been paying premiums, so guess whose premiums and taxes pay his bills?

Will be on the 'ONE YEAR AGO TODAY' thread.

snarkybird “from what I've read, mandates were added as a compromise to republicans and insurance companies. “

Where did you read that?
If that's the case, why isn't that a part of the Republican plan?

Face it, you are in favor of unlimited taxation and unlimited government.

Rationalize it all you want, but that's effectively what you are advocating.

Did you actually read the article you are commenting on?

“THE CONSTITUTION AND HEALTHCARE”

On the important question on whether the government can force you to buy health insurance?

Remember this part of the article:
“He does not believe that the Democrat plans for healthcare are justifiable.
He says that if the federal government can force Americans to buy health insurance "then there is literally nothing the federal government can't force us to do.”

It case you didn't – and your comment makes it pretty evident that you didn't, it was about the fact that if the Statists are able to force you to buy health insurance, they can force you to do anything else – hence they would have unlimited power.

Your can respond with a pantload of spin BS that you weren't doing that, but everyone reading the article and your comments would come to the conclusion that is exactly what you are advocating.

Again, you can try to rationalize and fool yourself, but you are advocating UNLIMITED government.

If you are supporting the idea that the government can compel people to buy health insurance, then you are supporting the idea that " there is literally nothing the federal government can't force us to do.”

In case you haven't figured it out, that would be unlimited power, now what is your answer to the question Yes or No?

Also, it getting quite amusing that you always have a tendency towards throwing around petty insults and accusing people of being 'Obtuse' (apparently, that you new favorite word, did you just learn that?)

Anyways, that really highlights the Leftist tendency towards 'projection' – maybe 'The party of projection' can be your new moniker. That is after Pragmatist is discredited, along with Progressivist, Socialist, Fascist, Marxist, Collectivist, Leninist, Stalinist, .

Anyways, TRY to actually read the articles before you make a fool of yourself, and keep that projection thing in mind.

He would sound a lot more convincing if the republicans weren't just as averse as the democrats to following the constitution themselves. From gay marriage to drugs laws to redistricting they stretch any credible understanding of the constitution. A pox on both their houses.

In Georgia, if we get caught driving without the REQUIRED auto insurance, we go to jail.

Maybe that reporter who asked about the Constitutionality of the Health care bill,

for which Nancy Pelosi asked if he was serious,
should have followed up with the question, "Did you not take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?"

I would have loved to have seen that.

make sure you show your socialist membership card when you go git yo' shot..........

Abuse of the second particular in Article 1, Section 8 is the most common offense. Somewhere between 60 and 70% of the Federal Budget would be eliminated if the fed were really held to the US Constitution, though many State Constitutions allow much of what is forbidden to the federal government by its’ constitution. After 80 years of overstepping the constitution with the Supreme Court’s blessing, it’ll probably take a constitutional amendment to put the federal government back in its’ place.

The US Constitution is certainly a joke to the dp, it means whatever they want it to mean at the moment.

I can see where the US Constitution can force me to pay for the military (Article 1, Section 8, items 9, 11, 12, and 15 of the particulars), but where does it mention health care in the Constitution, much less among those 17 particulars in Article 1 Section 8, Congress can levy taxes to pay for, Brian? I’m assuming “foreign government,” was just a Socialist International slip, and you meant “federal government.”

joyce - maybe you're right on this not being constitutional. I think it is and it has well documented prescedent but, ultimately, if someone does challenge this, it would probably end up at the SCOTUS.

and they'd be challenging pretty much every govt welfare program in existence.

I think the law, time, and the odds are in favor of these programs.

But if you dont, guess what - you have recourse.

less talk, more walk.. although, I actually think Dick Armey will beat you to the punch.

retechie
general welfare, commerce clause and taxation powers.

You may disagree but, that's your answer.

Same answer applies to Medicare.

Again, disagree away but no one has yet successfully litigated any of this as being unconstitutional. that's close to 50 years and counting.

maybe you can be the first! :-)
By snarkybird

The general welfare, etc., does NOT apply to forcing a citizen to buy something, so that is not an answer. I don't believe anyone has ever challenged social security or medicare before, please show us where they have. SHOULD have, but probably not.

It would just be so much better if you people would realize we can take care of the uninsured/uninsurable WITHOUT creating a new bureaucracy. If that can be done, why are you pushing so hard for this legislation? What do you care as long as they are covered some how?

git jerky so we have a snack fo' the game tomarra.......

it seperates the toothers from the toothless......and you can do short term shoe repair........

general welfare, commerce clause and taxation powers.

You may disagree but, that's your answer.

Same answer applies to Medicare.

Again, disagree away but no one has yet successfully litigated any of this as being unconstitutional. that's close to 50 years and counting.

maybe you can be the first! :-)

Was that your point?

Would someone please list where in the constitution the federal government has the ability to create a federal healthcare system. I would like to see a knowledgable and cogent arguement as to why the statists believe this plan would be constitutional.

fill out form after form about my private business affairs for the government to decide how much of my earnings I'm allowed to keep or have the government notified if I make a transaction over $10,000 with my bank, then I think the government can justify just about any intrusion they want.

We have fought this all the way to the highest court and they have ruled it not unconstitutional. So, there you go.

Oh! It's also not unconstitutional to confiscate private land to use in a manner that will increase the tax revenue for local governments.

This is the America we have CHOSEN to live in. It's not the America our Founding Fathers gave us.

However, if we keep electing the same people into office that we always have, then things will certainly change. How pathetic?

Thank you Republican and Democrat supporters, your two-headed party monopoly monster has served us well.

What a jerk.
By Truthseeker

Oh you meant Orrin!!!!!!!!!

I would only tend to disagree wit you on one tiny point – despite what people may think, jerky doesn't have that long of a shelf life – at least according to the 'use by' dates on the package.

And at least in comparison to other foods you may want to stock up on, it good, but don't plan on it lasting as long as other staples.

I have heard several times that B.Hussein Obama was a scholar/professor of US Constitutional Law. However, to me, B.Hussein Obama is an expert of the US Constitution like Willie Sutton was a banking expert.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid must have weekly spitting contests targeting the constitution to determine who takes the lead on promoting the federal gov't's duty to usurp individual thought, rights, action and life.

We all have a Constitutional right to die from lack of health care! And it's up to the good Republicans of the country to make sure more Americans can enjoy that right!

What a jerk.

If they control healthcare, they control the whole ball of wax, that's why they are fighting for this tooth and nail despite all the opposition from the voters.


Many people have raised this question, and I wouldn't put it past the Statists to try that – along with controlling a myriad of other things.

snarkybird @ 11/02/09 04:21:36 PM : “Obama won because people were ready for something different”

Translation: Radical Statists saw him as one of their own, With others, the blank slate of Fauxbama could be filled in with whatever they wanted – if they wanted a 'Moderate' he appeared to be a moderate, if they wanted a conservative, he appeared to be a conservative, and so on......

snarkybird @ 11/02/09 04:21:36 PM : “he is a remarkable speaker and charismatic personality. and his story is uniquely American...what he's achieved, where he came from, etc. “

Translation – he's good at reading a speech from a teleprompter, He can also do a fine job at reading pre-prepared text – on a teleprompter, and with a working teleprompter he can give an ice campaign speech promising all kind of plunder to the dumbmasses.
Oh did I mention that he's good at making a speech with the invaluable help of a teleprompter?

On the examples of the Statist buying votes – why does that have to be a trend over time in order to have occurred?

Newsflash, things can occur once and still be real.

You first asked of an occurrence of when the people voted for plunder, one was provided – bu that wasn't good enough and you put forward the “Trend” argument – the absurd notion that something hasn't occurred until it's occurred several times.

As typical of the Left, when backed into a rhetorical corner, instead of admitting they were wrong, they MOVE THE CORNER!

If we had provided an example of this occurring 4 years ago, you would have come up with the equally absurd concept that it has to occur over 6 or 8 years, and we had provided that you would have made it 10 -12 years and so on.

You would have backed up to ancient times if necessary – or simply run out the clock

True that the Constitution stops the government from forcing us to buy or do things against our will but we should have not been forced to pay for those who will not pay for their own needs. That is where the slippery slope started.

Hasn't meant anything to the left since FDR shredded it with the "new deal" so why should they care now.....

Brian, I love how you lefties ALWAYS bring up the military, a CONSTITUTIONALLY mandated function of the government.......

Snarkybird is right!!! People in this country need to start warming up to the idea that Karl Marx is the answer to our problems in this country. Along with Snarkybird, I agree that private industry is an abomination on society and that the government needs to control our lives so we don't have to worry about anything any more.

for someone with the guts to take this on

is to control the medicine. Valadimir Lenin.

Just a thought, but if the govt controls who gets health care and who does not, can they refuse health care to gun owners?