I've studied the Health care bill and I don't hate it

[Moliere]

Who gave Obama the power to decide how people can spend their money on something that should be optional?

I struggle with this as well although I think the minute that we agree that we are going to care for someones health regardless of circumstances it puts us in an awkward position. Health care has become a right just by the mere factthat an ER will treat everyone that alks through the door.

I personally don't like the mandate and I think it's unconstitutonal but I'm not a lawyer so my opinon probably has any real legal support. But just because health care is a right doesn't man congress can ignore the constitution to try and fix the industry. The problem is that the other options that probably are more constitutional were shot downfairly quickly.

[Tim]

You make a fair point about the Constitution being something that will be interpreted differently by different people. I tend to believe that the founders who put it together meant for it to be rather ambiguous.

That said, I'm just trying to understand why Obama has decided that we are required to buy something that many don't want to buy. I buy health insurance for myself and my family because I want to buy it. My priorities have changed. However, I didn't buy it when I was single, not because I couldn't afford it, but because I wanted to spend my money on other things.

Who gave Obama the power to decide how people can spend their money on something that should be optional?

The people did by voting him into office. Just like voting Reagan in gave him the power to building thousands of additional nuclear weapons. Just like voting Clinton in gave him the power to promote free trade in North America. What do you mean, who gave him the power... WE DID! You personally may not have, but our countrymen did. And that makes what he's doing completely legit.

[Moliere]

The people did by voting him into office. Just like voting Reagan in gave him the power to building thousands of additional nuclear weapons. Just like voting Clinton in gave him the power to promote free trade in North America. What do you mean, who gave him the power... WE DID! You personally may not have, but our countrymen did. And that makes what he's doing completely legit.

[il Padrino Ute]

The people did by voting him into office. Just like voting Reagan in gave him the power to building thousands of additional nuclear weapons. Just like voting Clinton in gave him the power to promote free trade in North America. What do you mean, who gave him the power... WE DID! You personally may not have, but our countrymen did. And that makes what he's doing completely legit.

Ok, I'll rephrase the question and perhaps you'll actually answer it this time:

Who gave Obama the power to punish people for not buying something?

What he is doing is unprecedented. Forcing citizens to buy health care or be punished is not constitutional. According to Obama, inaction is illegal. WTH?

[Indy Coug]

I'll ask this question not knowing the answer:

What does the federal government currently require us to purchase?

[Tim]

If it can mean anything, it means nothing. I believe in following the original intent. I disagree that it was built specifically to be interpreted. The concept of judicial review, while I agree with the need, is not specifically part of the constitution. We're to the point where the constitution means what five justices says it means, which is fine as long as they're following the original intent (and I know, the original intent isn't always a slam dunk). IMO, Madison would be horrified with the federal power grab justified in the name of the commerce clause.

Yes, the constitution is built for change. Through the amendment process!

For years, the SCOTUS struck down the income tax because it constituted a direct tax on the people and was clearly unconstitutional. You didn't have to be a Harvard educated lawyer to know that. And as much as I'm 100% opposed to the income tax, they changed the constitution through the proper channels to allow it. Same with prohibition.

That changed with FDR and his threats to pack the court when they kept striking down his fascist new deal power grabs. Well, the threat worked. Now screw amendments, let's just change the interpretation!! I absolutely hated the fact that I felt the need to support McCain (a guy I dislike immensely) because I was afraid of who Obama would appoint. The SCOTUS is too powerful.

In short, the constitution was intended to restrain a strong, but limited central government. By that standard, save for a few of the original ten amendments, it's pretty much dead. You might say, "hanging by a thread".

What's missing from your argument is a principle that defines WHY the original intent is more important than the current intent. It's the piece that always seems to be missing from the "original intent" argument, at least in my view. Who cares what someone 230 years ago wanted? The Constitution they wrote was for them, and it worked in their time. But they knew times would change, they knew that the people would change, the government would change, and the laws needed to change, so they specifically built a system that would allow for change and flexibility. That suggests that they believed that the law would change with the will of the people. Why put a stake in the ground that even the founding fathers weren't willing to place into the ground? Nostalgia? I just don't understand why on earth we should care about what someone 200+ years ago would think of what we do now.

[Tim]

I'll ask this question not knowing the answer:

What does the federal government currently require us to purchase?

The federal government requires us to purchase a ton of things. Weapons, wars, national parks, etc. Those are indirectly paid for by all of us with the taxes we're required to pay. Don't pay them and you go to jail. If you don't want to pay for the wars, then, you go to jail.

[Indy Coug]

The federal government requires us to purchase a ton of things. Weapons, wars, national parks, etc. Those are indirectly paid for by all of us with the taxes we're required to pay. Don't pay them and you go to jail. If you don't want to pay for the wars, then, you go to jail.

LOL. There's a huge fundamental difference between the power to tax and then spending those tax dollars at their discretion versus dictating to us how to spend money on ourselves.

[kccougar]

The people did by voting him into office. Just like voting Reagan in gave him the power to building thousands of additional nuclear weapons. Just like voting Clinton in gave him the power to promote free trade in North America. What do you mean, who gave him the power... WE DID! You personally may not have, but our countrymen did. And that makes what he's doing completely legit.

Terrific. A sitting President can do no wrong

[Surfah]

The people did by voting him into office. Just like voting Reagan in gave him the power to building thousands of additional nuclear weapons. Just like voting Clinton in gave him the power to promote free trade in North America. What do you mean, who gave him the power... WE DID! You personally may not have, but our countrymen did. And that makes what he's doing completely legit.

So you'd argue what Bush did was completely legit?

[mUUser]

The people did by voting him into office....And that makes what he's doing completely legit.

Ok. That line of reasoning is scary as hell. :crazy:

[Moliere]

The federal government requires us to purchase a ton of things. Weapons, wars, national parks, etc. Those are indirectly paid for by all of us with the taxes we're required to pay. Don't pay them and you go to jail. If you don't want to pay for the wars, then, you go to jail.

Tax and spend is much different than forcing someone to buy something. Youd be much better off trying to argue that we are not mandated to buy insurance, however we get a tax break if we do have insurance.

[All-American]

I don't really see how the two are connected. Taxation and tax breaks are not synonymous with universally, unprovisionally mandating a purchase by threat of law. At least not how I see it. The closest thing to that is something like car insurance, but even that's provisional based on unrequired ownership of an automobile.

The right of government to tax and to reduce taxes is well established. The only thing different about this bill is the direction. In the one case, you will pay X dollars as taxes unless you buy a home, in which case your taxes are reduced. In the other, you pay X dollars as taxes unless you don't buy health insurance, in which case your taxes are increased.

The mandate to buy insurance has no practical effect different than if the government raised everybody's taxes and then gave a tax credit to those who bought health insurance. I have a hard time imagining a court striking down a bill as illegal if it says "Buy health insurance or pay this tax", and not "Pay this tax or buy health insurance."

[Tim]

So you'd argue what Bush did was completely legit?

No, that's not what I'd argue. His question was "Who gave him the right to...", not "Is what he's doing legit?"

[shoganai]

The right of government to tax and to reduce taxes is well established. The only thing different about this bill is the direction. In the one case, you will pay X dollars as taxes unless you buy a home, in which case your taxes are reduced. In the other, you pay X dollars as taxes unless you don't buy health insurance, in which case your taxes are increased.

The mandate to buy insurance has no practical effect different than if the government raised everybody's taxes and then gave a tax credit to those who bought health insurance. I have a hard time imagining a court striking down a bill as illegal if it says "Buy health insurance or pay this tax", and not "Pay this tax or buy health insurance."

From what I understand, this is essentially the argument that the supreme court will have to decide down the road. Can the fine for not purchasing health insurance be considered the same as a federal tax, and the purchase of health care a qualifier for a tax credit?

At this point, no one really knows who will win that argument. The Democrats couldn't define it as a tax/tax credit situation in the bill, because then they couldn't claim to be lowering taxes for most.

The other side will probably argue that even taxation is not actually an unprovisional mandate. Taxation only applies if you choose to make a certain amount of money or choose to buy something. In fact, something like 40 percent of U.S. citizens pay no income taxes at all anymore.

When it comes to flat-out, universal, unequivocal mandates that every breathing adult has to purchase something out of their own pocket or face penalty of law, there is no real precedent. That's why this one will go all the way to the top before it's decided for good.