Nancy Pelosi And Karl Marx On "freedom"

UNT90 · March 25, 2010

Over the last year there has been much discussion concerning the negatives and positives of the new health care bill. Depending upon where one stands on this volitile issue one aspect is that it covers all Americans regardless of pre existing conditions. Conversley, this program will take one-sixth of our G.N.P.. From a Democratic Party point of view do they feel that the Republicans will nulify or abolish the new HCB between now and "IF" the Republicans begin to take control of Congress?? The answer is NO. Reason: History shows that once social programs have been enacted, such as this HCB, LBJ's Great Society (which name was taken from British Fabianism), or FDR's New Deal the opposition party has "NEVER" repealed any of this social legislation once they took power. Currently, the Obama administration wants to, basically, nationalize the financial industry, overhaul and naturalize 30 million illegals by the end of 2010. Begining in 2011 the federal government will have control of our health care (BHO), financial industry (BHO), immigration (BHO), agriculture and cattle (FDR), social security (FDR), medicare/medicade (LBJ), welfare (LBJ) our federalized/subsidized transportation system (various) and all TAXING authority to enforce these social programs. What remains? The media. We all know that the government never estimates taxes correctly.....always lowball's estimates. If the pendelum swings forcefully to the right will the Republicans begin to dismantle this bloated socialized system. I still say no. It is here to stay.

Perhaps, but you have to remember that the "health care" portion of this bill does not go into effect until 2014. So basically, the addiction does not begin until 2014, so that leaves a 4 year window for this to be repealed.

eulesseagle · March 25, 2010

UNT90, good point. thx.

yyz28 · March 25, 2010

This is the issue that the organizations that wish a court challenge need to stick with. I think that the opposite side of the argument is that no one is denied emergency health care now, so the federal government at least has the right to demand that people pay for that up front.

Still say very little hope of getting any help from the Supreme Court on this.

They may have a moral right to expect people to pay for that up front, but I'm talking about the Constitution. What part of the constitution allows the federal government to mandate that a private citizen purchase a product simply for existing. Beyond that, there is a strong article 10 argument as much of this is going to be put on the back of states and violates state sovereignty as protected by the 10th.

MeanGreenTexan · March 25, 2010

They may have a moral right to expect people to pay for that up front, but I'm talking about the Constitution. What part of the constitution allows the federal government to mandate that a private citizen purchase a product simply for existing. Beyond that, there is a strong article 10 argument as much of this is going to be put on the back of states and violates state sovereignty as protected by the 10th.

Honest question: Constitutionally, whats the difference between being forced to buy auto insurance and being forced to buy health insurance?

I know you have to have liability insurance for hitting someone else, but the government (albeit state govt.) forces us to buy it...

yyz28 · March 25, 2010

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2764

Interesting perspective, however, if a tax is levied because you don't buy a product, it is a fine, and will be seen as a fine by a court as it is a fine in practice. By his logic the Federal Government could mandate almost any action on the basis that failure to act may impose a cost on society. Also, I don't see how one could invoke the commerce clause where the affected individuals are not even engaging the the commerce supposedly covered. Finally, the most basic right that an individual has is the right to not participate, to be left alone.

Also, you have the false "right to privacy" precedent set by Roe v. Wade, which could be blown apart by this measure. How is this individual mandate not a violation of the right to privacy? Consider: This individual mandate says that we as private citizens have to do the private behavior of buying a certain type of private commodity coupled with this tax penalty for not engaging in this private behavior. I have seen some argue along the line that this is just the power to tax, in that government has the right to say, "OK, we're going to hit you with this tax, but if you engage in this private behavior that we tell you to do, then we'll wipe out the tax." I claim that this argument is subterfuge. Therefore, some questions: Why the subterfuge? Why not just tax us openly and in return give us a government service like oh, say, a strong public option? If this is held up as legal, then what's to keep government - including a future George Bush or president you Don't like - from using the power to tax as a subterfuge for violating our right to privacy without end?

How the courts will decide is anyone's guess (and anyone who claims to know with certainty one way or the other is blowing hot air), but it is an important constitutional issue and a legitimate argument can be made that the mandate exceeds the scope of the Commerce Clause and that other parts of the measure violate the 10th amendment.

yyz28 · March 25, 2010

Honest question: Constitutionally, whats the difference between being forced to buy auto insurance and being forced to buy health insurance?

I know you have to have liability insurance for hitting someone else, but the government (albeit state govt.) forces us to buy it...

That's a fair and honest question, but you answered it yourself.

State governments have their own constitutions and as such have different rules about what they can and can't impose on their citizens.

Moreover, Car insurance and health insurance are very different products.

1. Driving a car is a privilege.

2. Driving a car is regulated directly by the state.

3. State governments can mandate that if you engage in a certain behavior that may risk others property and life that you must have financial responsibility.

4. State governments set the rules by which you can be licensed to enjoy the privilege to drive.

In fact, states have different insurance requirements they place on their drivers.

...in the case of the health insurance mandate, you will be forced to have health insurance, even if you never go to the doctor. Simply for living. Simply for being born, you have to purchase health insurance, and not any health insurance, but rather insurance that meets a specific standard set forth by the Federal Government and enforced by the IRS. You don't have the option to just pay the doctor out of your pocket. You must have insurance, or you will face a fine.

CMJ · March 25, 2010

Yyz28 --- I was just posting the article from a guy who seemed well versed in the law(and medicine I assume). The question was asked, I provided. *shrug*

Censored by Laurie · March 25, 2010

Yyz28 --- I was just posting the article from a guy who seemed well versed in the law(and medicine I assume). The question was asked, I provided. *shrug*

How's WKU's recruiting class rounding into shape?

FirefightnRick · March 25, 2010

Interesting perspective, however, if a tax is levied because you don't buy a product, it is a fine, and will be seen as a fine by a court as it is a fine in practice. By his logic the Federal Government could mandate almost any action on the basis that failure to act may impose a cost on society. Also, I don't see how one could invoke the commerce clause where the affected individuals are not even engaging the the commerce supposedly covered. Finally, the most basic right that an individual has is the right to not participate, to be left alone.

Also, you have the false "right to privacy" precedent set by Roe v. Wade, which could be blown apart by this measure. How is this individual mandate not a violation of the right to privacy? Consider: This individual mandate says that we as private citizens have to do the private behavior of buying a certain type of private commodity coupled with this tax penalty for not engaging in this private behavior. I have seen some argue along the line that this is just the power to tax, in that government has the right to say, "OK, we're going to hit you with this tax, but if you engage in this private behavior that we tell you to do, then we'll wipe out the tax." I claim that this argument is subterfuge. Therefore, some questions: Why the subterfuge? Why not just tax us openly and in return give us a government service like oh, say, a strong public option? If this is held up as legal, then what's to keep government - including a future George Bush or president you Don't like - from using the power to tax as a subterfuge for violating our right to privacy without end?

How the courts will decide is anyone's guess (and anyone who claims to know with certainty one way or the other is blowing hot air), but it is an important constitutional issue and a legitimate argument can be made that the mandate exceeds the scope of the Commerce Clause and that other parts of the measure violate the 10th amendment.

You probably have an understanding of this better than I, but here you go, this is where they supposedly are going to try and go with this even though it's unconstitutional. WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) , the mother of all activists decisions that broke down once and for all the barrier between limited decentralized government and centralized, unlimited government.

They forced a farmer to pay a fine for exceeding his farming quota, an amount(excess) he was using to run his farm, not to sell. It of course went to the Supreme court. Amazingly, justice Robert Jackson, writing for a unanimous court ruled that congress could regulate the amount of wheat a farmer could use on his own property even though non of it ever left the state, and stated that he affected interstate commerce by not buying wheat on the open market. So NOT engaging in interstate commerce IS engaging in interstate commerce because you are withholding your engagement in interstate commerce, thus laying the groundwork for what is about to be shoved right down our throats even if we don't want it. The founding fathers never meant for this type of preposterous logic to take place. This is why when the guys over at CNS.com walked up to the congressional marxists on camera the past couple of months and asked them point blank to tell and show them what part of the constitution gives them the right to force us to buy health insurance they couldn't answer them.

What I'm hearing is that this can go two ways. The bill will be repealed or the funding for it will be cut so that it never takes root?

Rick

Edited March 25, 2010 by FirefightnRick

forevereagle · March 25, 2010

Honest question: Constitutionally, whats the difference between being forced to buy auto insurance and being forced to buy health insurance?

I know you have to have liability insurance for hitting someone else, but the government (albeit state govt.) forces us to buy it...

Because they don't force you to buy a car.

MeanGreenTexan · March 25, 2010

Because they don't force you to buy a car.

I'm not sure I follow...

They don't force me to buy a car, but force me to have auto insurance.

They don't force me to _________, but force me to have health insurance.

What is the reciprocal of this? They don't force me to live/have good health?

keith · March 25, 2010

I'm not sure I follow...

They don't force me to buy a car, but force me to have auto insurance.
They don't force me to _________, but force me to have health insurance.

What is the reciprocal of this? They don't force me to live/have good health?

I believe the point is that you are not forced to purchase auto insurance if you do not own/drive a car. The purchase of liability insurance is a condition of being granted access to the public roadways. One interesting aspect of this is with your auto insurance, you are probably purchasing medical insurance too (Personal Injury Protection), but it's only good if you're in the car. PIP, by the way, is probably a duplicate of your existing medical coverage - assuming you have medial coverage and since you can't file two claims for the same event, PIP is unnecessary coverage.

Keith

MeanGreenTexan · March 25, 2010

I believe the point is that you are not forced to purchase auto insurance if you do not own/drive a car. The purchase of liability insurance is a condition of being granted access to the public roadways. One interesting aspect of this is with your auto insurance, you are probably purchasing medical insurance too (Personal Injury Protection), but it's only good if you're in the car. PIP, by the way, is probably a duplicate of your existing medical coverage - assuming you have medial coverage and since you can't file two claims for the same event, PIP is unnecessary coverage.

Keith

Thanks Keith! I'll need to check my policy to make sure I'm not carrying extra coverage.

I knew something good would come of this discussion!

UNTFan23 · March 25, 2010

I'm not sure I follow...

They don't force me to buy a car, but force me to have auto insurance.
They don't force me to __live___, but force me to have health insurance.

What is the reciprocal of this? They don't force me to live/have good health?

Driving is a privilege; not a right. If you get caught driving without adequate insurance, it's the state you pay the fine to, not the federal government.

The health insurance federal mandate is vastly different than car insurance mandated by the states.

Has anyone ever wondered how the federal government is going to handle the homeless when it comes to health insurance?

MeanGreenTexan · March 25, 2010

Driving is a privilege; not a right. If you get caught driving without adequate insurance, it's the state you pay the fine to, not the federal government.

The health insurance federal mandate is vastly different than car insurance mandated by the states.

Has anyone ever wondered how the federal government is going to handle the homeless when it comes to health insurance?

Maybe they're the ones excluded when they throw out the '96% of Americans' number?

eeally · March 25, 2010

educate the population and you have tort reform. Quit awarding people a million dollars because their body reacted to a drug different than 999999% of everybody else!

increase the number of practitioners!

Let drug companies prescribe medicine....yes educate the population and they wont abuse drugs as much.

Fair price policy -- ensure competition among healthcare companies. Goverment cannot run healthcare!!!

Get a gun because Texas is succeding from the Union soon!!!! Go 2nd Amendment!

MeanGreenTexan · March 25, 2010

educate the population and you have tort reform. Quit awarding people a million dollars because their body reacted to a drug different than 999999% of everybody else!
increase the number of practitioners!
Let drug companies prescribe medicine....yes educate the population and they wont abuse drugs as much.
Fair price policy -- ensure competition among healthcare companies. Goverment cannot run healthcare!!!
Get a gun because Texas is succeding from the Union soon!!!! Go 2nd Amendment!

Oh boy... :rolleyes1:

UNT90 · March 26, 2010

http://healthcareref...ejm.org/?p=2764

Interesting, but this reads like a legal brief for the defense of the health care bill (which it probably is, as it comes from Yale law school).

Some points that the opposing brief may include would be:

1) being a healthy person is not the same as polluting, for so many obvious reasons (which would be listed in the brief). Why should a person who is healthy be responsible for supporting a person who is not? How is this not socialism/communism? What authority allows the federal government to tax a citizen because said citizen maintains good health?

2) Will the government turn around and purchase an insurance policy for the uninsured healthy person with that 2.5% tax they levy (funny how what this tax will be used for is left out)? If so, the argument will be made that this is only a tax to get around the constitution. The court will NOT look favorably on that tactic. If not, taxing someone for being healthy in order to bring down rates for others who are not healthy is just another form of socialism/communism.

Lots of holes in this article. The glaring thing is comparing a healthy person to failing to install polution equipment. If that is the best analogy a Yale Law guy can come up with, it tells me he is working with an extremely weak argument.

And, if you had any doubts of his political leanings, check out this post on his blog:

http://balkin.blogsp...687569359854402

Not written by him, just allowed to be posted on his blog.

Edited March 30, 2010 by UNT90