If ObamaCare is Unconstitutional ....

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Mar 27, 2012.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,102
    Likes Received:
    218
    The Dems are saying that if ObamaCare is unconstitutional - then Social Security should have been declared unconstitutional.

    You know what? They are right - but what took them so long to figure that out?

    Yes, SS should have been ruled unconstitutional.

    Should SS be ended immediately - NO - Due to the impact it would have. There should be a phase out.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,102
    Likes Received:
    218
    The Dems also said that they are forced to buy cars with emission control - even if they don't want emission controls.

    Wow! the Dems are finally getting it. Maybe they will start voiding some of these federal mandates.:applause:
     
  3. Jedi Knight

    Jedi Knight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,934
    Likes Received:
    45
    So shouldn't they just take it out of our checks like SS?
     
  4. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,204
    Likes Received:
    611
    Oh man, gimme a link! If I were the Repubs I'd be screaming from the mountaintops, THE DEMOCRATS SAY SOCIAL SECURITY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WANT TO ABOLISH IT!

    It would make the contraceptive debate the Dems cooked up look as insignificant as a pimple on the back of a hippopotamus.
     
  5. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,102
    Likes Received:
    218
    First- the Dems are appearing to say we must be consistent. Another words what they are in essence saying that since SS IS constitutional, then Obamacare MUST be constitutional.

    I was watching C-span tonight and the Dems and the Reps each had their own press conference and giving their individual thoughts.

    At the moment, I did not find a link - probably in a few hours something will pop up.
     
  6. Jedi Knight

    Jedi Knight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,934
    Likes Received:
    45
    Well your gonna buy a car someday so you might as well start making payments now. :tonofbricks:
     
  7. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,102
    Likes Received:
    218
    You are absolutely right!

    The cost of a Ford Focus is about 25 Grand. I don't know the % of the cost that is due to Federal mandates - but it has to be a large one. Click here for the mandates then of course a good portion is also to pay for the health benefits of the factory workers.

    and now the Feds are considering requiring all cars to have back up cameras - oh don't worry - thats only about 300 dollars. That will only add about $ 7 to your monthly payment.
     
    #7 Salty, Mar 27, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 27, 2012
  8. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. SS is a socialist agenda. This is why when we start giving up our rights under the constitution it only gets worse. Once a right is gone it seldom is restored. The health care law is just another stripping away of the rights of the people and rejecting the constitution.
     
  9. Bobby Hamilton

    Bobby Hamilton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Social Security has a place for those who chose to pay into it, but the way it was done, yes, it was unconsititutional. I'd be fine right now if I could just quit paying into it and just did away with what I have paid into it. Within 3-5 years I could have that money back by investing wisely.


    Unconstitutional: Obama Care. Forcing penalties on people who don't get insurance.


    Everyone should have the OPTION to purchase some kind of affordable healthcare, but they should NOT be forced to purchase it.


    There is a simple way to handle healthcare.

    1. You pay for it
    2. You don't


    If you pay for healthcare, then your insurance covers you. If you don't, then you better have the money to pay for care up front, or a hospital/doctor's office should have the right to turn you away.

    Our country went to hell because people felt they were entitled to whatever they want. People know they can go to the ER and get treated and they'll never pay a dime. That's wrong, and it costs those of us who day pay for healthcare to pay more.
     
  10. Romans7man

    Romans7man
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2011
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was SS ever contested before it was passed? How many voted for and against?
     
  11. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    72
    Who would provide the option for people with preexisting conditions?

    That's the question. Insurance companies certainly won't volunteer to do this for individuals, even if they are willing to do it under the terms of a group plan. It would be financial suicide.
     
  12. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    72
    Here's the deal:

    The individual mandate is unconstitutional because the commerce clause gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, not to force people to create commerce.

    Social Security does not compel people to create commerce. Its constitutionality lies in the power of Congress to tax income.

    The two programs are substantively distinct.

    An option that would hold constititutional muster is a single-payer government-run insurance program funded by an income tax. Congress could regulate away insurance plans (or relegate them to supplemental coverage) under the Commerce Clause and could collect the tax under the Sixteenth Amendment. Precedent for Social Security would give cover for implementing the insurance plan.

    It would be constitutional, but that doesn't necessary mean it is the best idea.

    What is becoming clear, though, that our options for universal coverage are either going to involve abandoning it as a goal or implementing more government-run programs. Using private industry in a coercive fashion won't hold constitutional muster, and insurance companies won't be able to survive guaranteed-issue requirements without some form of government mandate.
     
    #12 StefanM, Mar 28, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2012
  13. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,102
    Likes Received:
    218
    Both Houses voted about 80% in favor of the bill.

    The "Economic Security Bill" was introduced in Jan of 1935. President Roosevelt signed the bill into law On August 14, 1935
     
  14. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  15. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,204
    Likes Received:
    611
    Well done. I agree with this.

    Another option would be for states to create their own universal mandates, ala Massachusetts.
     
  16. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    The payroll tax is NOT a contract for future services.

    Anyone who has read the Social Security legislation should understand that paying the SS IS NOT purchasing anything. It is NOT a contract for future services. The payroll tax is a plain, old, income tax with a fancy name.
     
  17. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Should a person be required to provide a proof of ability to pay before being treated at a hospital as are required to show before being treated at a doctor's office?
     
  18. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. No one should be required by law for such proof, and no doctor or hospital should be required by law to require such proof. It should be up to the doctor or hospital to do as they wish regarding such checks without coercion and take the risk as they deem worthy.
     
  19. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to agree with Stephan about the difference between SS and Obamacare.

    But another objection would be that SS doesn't force us to buy something from a privately owned business. Obamacare forces every citizen to purchase something that will in the end enrich a certain class of individuals (those who own, run or own stock in a health ins. company). SS doesn't do this. As bad as SS is with as much fraud and wasteful that goes on, it doesn't enrich privately owned organizations.

    If Obama had found some excuse to nationalize health insurance co (I LOVE to see him try lol) and make them all into non-profits or gov run entities, he might have had an easier time passing it through the Supreme Court as did the SS act (http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html)
     
  20. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's funny this was posted. I was thinking about this exact thing earlier today. Social Security and the Affordable Care Act rest on distinct constitutional basis.

    Social Security is an exercise of Congress' Taxing and Spending Clause authority. It was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Helvering v. Davis. The legal theory on which the individual mandate in the ACA is based is that Congressional authority from the Commerce Clause extends to allow Congress to require people to purchase insurance.

    I do not agree. I think the mandate does go too far. It is my opinion that the mandate violates the Constitution. In my view, political philosophy and judicial philosophy are separate issues. The fact is the Federal government is a government of enumerated powers and to say that they have the power to require us to buy insurance is a bridge I'm not willing to cross.

    I've been saying the mandate is not the way to go from the beginning. I don't like it for both political and legal reasons. It's one of my arguments in favor of single payer, which would be unquestionably constitutional and would rest on the same basis as Social Security and Medicare.
     

Share This Page

Loading...