Universal Health Care, UnConstitutional?

[Twfan55]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...track=ntothtml

Check it out.

[humvee2800]

So the constitution is now the judge of all that is right and wrong by the standards of the 1790s?

Well then why am i not allowed to have slaves?

[Shaun]

So the constitution is now the judge of all that is right and wrong by the standards of the 1790s?

Well then why am i not allowed to have slaves?

Ditto. Modern ideas for modern problems.

[HorseArcher]

The question here is more about mandatory vs. voluntary.

Would you settle for a mandatory (must have) health care or would you rather choose health care voluntarily?

As mandatory health care plan, you must have health care, you like it or not , you wanted or not, you will be paying for one way or another, just like having car-insurance.

In a voluntarily health care, you still have the option to opt out of having a health care plan if you don't want to.

Mandatory Health Care Plan - Hillary Clinton.

Voluntary Health Care Plan - McCain, Obama. (with Obama only mandates Children)

I'm glad this topic came up, because people haven't even realized the impact this could make (on your wallet and your rights), especially if Hillary becomes the president and having a health insurance will become mandatory.

[ZaPPPa]

As mandatory health care plan, you must have health care, you like it or not , you wanted or not, you will be paying for one way or another, just like having car-insurance.

I wonder.. Why don't I hear any whining and crying about car insurance?

[ajm317]

I wonder.. Why don't I hear any whining and crying about car insurance?

The article addresses that.

[Gaidin]

So the constitution is now the judge of all that is right and wrong by the standards of the 1790s?

Well then why am i not allowed to have slaves?

Did you miss Article V? It answers that question well enough.

[HopliteElite]

you know this is exactly why giving the government more of you money is a bad thing. Firstly if you've ever worked for them you'll see the huge amount of waste involved in governmental spending.

Yes, the government does waste a lot of money... On wars and rediculous institutions like the dept. of homeland security. The only problem is that the dept. of homeland security will not protect people from cancer, aids, etc... Nor will the war in Iraq secure the health of these people.

The reason being is that only do our taxes go to public works and institutions but they also fund wars, other countries (including military assistance in the forms of weapons), bailing out private industries like the airlines, bailing out retarded banks that give out bad loans. its why when you give the govt $1 its only worth $1 in the economy but when you actually spend that in the economy yourself its worth $10.

You've made my argument! Stop spending taxes on rediculous things like unjust wars and military assistance to countries that wage our wars for us in foreign lands, and we could afford universal healthcare. I agree that as things stand, our taxes are being spent wrongly. Maybe our government policy should change to accommodate universal healthcare before we dismiss universal healthcare based upon faulty government policies?

[Gelgoog]

Yes, the government does waste a lot of money... On wars and rediculous institutions like the dept. of homeland security. The only problem is that the dept. of homeland security will not protect people from cancer, aids, etc... Nor will the war in Iraq secure the health of these people.



You've made my argument! Stop spending taxes on rediculous things like unjust wars and military assistance to countries that wage our wars for us in foreign lands, and we could afford universal healthcare. I agree that as things stand, our taxes are being spent wrongly. Maybe our government policy should change to accommodate universal healthcare before we dismiss universal healthcare based upon faulty government policies?

hah name me one government that doesnt hemorrhage money and you get a shiney nickle

[Oldgamer]

So the constitution is now the judge of all that is right and wrong by the standards of the 1790s?

Yes.

If the States wish to have universal health care, they are free to do so. However, Constitution does not give the federal government the power to provide for the health of all Americans. Federalism, and all that sort of thing ...

Well then why am i not allowed to have slaves?

Because slavery was ended by the process of Constitutional Amendment.

[Sidmen]

What the article is talking about is both immoral and unconstitutional.

DEMANDING that people purchase health care insurance at their own expense loaded with problems. Since it essentially forces you to give money to a money-grubbing corporation in order to live. Similar to the horrid 'insurance' required to drive scheme that the insurance companies managed to get passed.

This would, IMO cause drastic problems resulting in more poverty.

[Cluny the Scourge]

Similar to the horrid 'insurance' required to drive scheme that the insurance companies managed to get passed.

This would, IMO cause drastic problems resulting in more poverty.

Universal healthcare keeps people economically productive by ensuring that treatable medical conditions are not allowed to ruin their ability to develop and market their skills. E.g. if a college student gets some unfortunate medical problem that will take about a year of expensive treatment to get right and he/she can't afford it while at college, he's ed. That's his future ruined - and his future contribution to American society pissed away like so much cheap beer. That's just one example. Use your imagination.

And the idea of doing WITHOUT an insurance required to drive rule is madness. If you cause a collision then you will most likely kill or maim someone ELSE, never mind yourself - are they supposed to do without the compensation for treatment, etc. because you don't have insurance? If it's simply a matter of personal responsibility, that's one thing, but when you get into the field of potentially harming other people you don't have a leg to stand on.

[Gelgoog]

And the idea of doing WITHOUT an insurance required to drive rule is madness. If you cause a collision then you will most likely kill or maim someone ELSE, never mind yourself - are they supposed to do without the compensation for treatment, etc. because you don't have insurance? If it's simply a matter of personal responsibility, that's one thing, but when you get into the field of potentially harming other people you don't have a leg to stand on.

big difference one is a priviledge the other isnt. As the article said, there are other means for people to choose not one forced path. With universal healthcare your forcing it on people who dont have a choice. you can always choose not to drive and use public transportation are alternative means. you can't choose to not pay for universal healthcare.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Unconstitutional to a me first, screw everyone libertarian.

[Sidmen]

Did you read the article?

[humvee2800]

What the article is talking about is both immoral and unconstitutional.

DEMANDING that people purchase health care insurance at their own expense loaded with problems. Since it essentially forces you to give money to a money-grubbing corporation in order to live. Similar to the horrid 'insurance' required to drive scheme that the insurance companies managed to get passed.

This would, IMO cause drastic problems resulting in more poverty.

so its okay for government to DEMAND taxes then?

[LoZz]

so its okay for government to DEMAND taxes then?

they DEMAND taxes from you now?!


anyway. i didnt want to start another topic on this question, so i hope its ok, as its on the same theme to ask it here.

i have watched sicko now.

acording to sicko insurance companies can refuse to insure you if your too much of a risk for them, i knew that, much like car insurance. but he published part of the list of things you can have that they can refuse you insurance on.

one of them was Asperger syndrome, which is on the autistic scale. acording to sicko i COULD (not 100% would) be refused health insurance because of this, is this true?

and i wish i knew health insurance companies refused to insure people too fat or too skinny when (i cant remember who) "mr x" was argueing the NHS refuses people.

[Sphere]

Private insurers can accept or decline anybody they wish. Thats only logical. They spend a good deal of money reviewing applicants to weed out those who might have high healthcare costs.

[jel]

Private insurers can accept or decline anybody they wish

So then my question would be, under Clinton's plan (and Obama's to a lesser degree), are the private insurers still free to reject coverage to anyone they wish? Are the people the private insurers reject the "limited exceptions". Or is the government going to mandate that insurers must insure anyone that applies fro coverage?

Seems to me you have a couple of issues here, besides the constitutionality of the government requiring people to purchase private insurance, but the government also forcing private enterprise to do business with people it may not necessarily wish to do business with.

[Gelgoog]

they DEMAND taxes from you now?!


anyway. i didnt want to start another topic on this question, so i hope its ok, as its on the same theme to ask it here.

i have watched sicko now.

acording to sicko insurance companies can refuse to insure you if your too much of a risk for them, i knew that, much like car insurance. but he published part of the list of things you can have that they can refuse you insurance on.

one of them was Asperger syndrome, which is on the autistic scale. acording to sicko i COULD (not 100% would) be refused health insurance because of this, is this true?

and i wish i knew health insurance companies refused to insure people too fat or too skinny when (i cant remember who) "mr x" was argueing the NHS refuses people.

not to be rude, but when did sicko become the standard to judge all others by? michael moore films lean so far to the left its really astonishing.