Ever heard of the police?
No, but one of the board members did infact purchase a several million dollar yacht because his company made money off my back surgery by raising insurance premiums.
How is this ethical?
General Welfare Clause.
Rights are things the government cannot take away, not things that the government must give you. I have a right to bear arms, but I'm not guaranteed a firearm from the government.
Did that CEO call you up and tell you that? What kind of yacht was he getting?
Right. I agree.
We already decided that we are going to have universal health care in this country when we required emergency rooms to treat every comer, regardless of ability to pay. Now we just gotta decide if we are going to have universal multi-payer or universal single-payer system. Universal multi-payer only works with the individual mandate. So go ahead, get a Republican court or Republican congress to kill that idea. Then we'll talk about where we go next.
Well actually we'll talk about where a Republican controlled Congress and Presidency will take us.
Who the Democrats or Republicans vote for in an election is irrelevant. We independents will make the ultimate decision, and I think you'll find that we aren't amused with either of you. Since the Dems insisted on ramming this down our throats, booby trapping the legislation won't be unnoticed. As a result you'll be punished in the elections. That's what happened this past November, and if you think it can't happen again, well you are mistaken.
This whole mess needs to be scrapped and the health care system itself positively reformed from the standpoint of facilitating care, and reasoned assessments of how to deliver it can be made. That was never wanted. What was wanted was control and bragging rights.
Not before the Supreme Court makes a ruling on the individual mandate. It is essential that we narrow down the options with every reform attempt so we aren't going in circles.
Ever heard of the police?
General Welfare Clause.
Wait, so the 2nd amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, doesn't actually guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, but merely guarantees the right of the state to have a police force to ostensibly protect us? That is just batshit insane.
So the preamble to the constitution, which states the government should promote the general welfare, grants the government unlimited power to do whatever it wants in the name of the general welfare? What is the point of explicitly listing the things the government is only allowed to do in the next article then?
It's general welfare.
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government[2] as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: [T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.[7]
- the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
- that Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clauseas elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United Statesis the correct interpretation.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.
And it's not just the preamble. It's in Article 1, section 8.
And I see you haven't read about it either. Shall we have your name as the co-author of this new amendment which would have to exist for your purpose?
Hey, "General Welfare"! That means we can all quit our jobs and you'll give us free stuff. Nice.
That's your reading of it, not mine.
LOL Thanks. I didn't realize that I was quoting the Messiah, but no doubt I've read or heard that quote and had it in the back of my mind.It's not thinking from the right. It's a quote from Obama, cited on page 78 of the judge Vinson's decision:
"I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that 'if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,'"
but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.
I pay taxes too. That's how I want my taxes spent.
Yeah...you can't make people buy something.....like auto insurance, or homeowner's insurance, or flood insurance if their home is in a designated flood plane or...
I think that you get the picture.
In Wichard v. Filburn, in my opinion a decision that ranks up there with Kelo v. New London for general horribleness and overreaching Unconstitutional federal power grabbing, SCOTUS ruled that an act enabling one to avoid commerce that could be considered interstate commerce (growing rather than buying wheat to feed one's own stock) was sufficient to give the federal government jurisdiction over one's actions and fungible property that never left one's real property. Given that precedent, it's hard for me to see SCOTUS ruling the mandate to be unconstitutional, even though personally I'd like to see the federal government's power reigned in considerably shorter than that. As a strict Originalist I'd like to see the federal government either stick to Constitutionally mandated powers, or introduce and pass Constitutional Amendments giving it the powers it thinks it needs. But it just seems to me that the mandate is rather far behind the leading edge of unconstitutional federal power grabs to be the one snipped off.Auto insurance is mandated by states, not the Fed, and is only required if you want to drive your car on public roads. Homeowners and Flood insurance are required by the bank that holds your mortgage, not the government.
Ever heard of the police?
No, but one of the board members did infact purchase a several million dollar yacht because his company made money off my back surgery by raising insurance premiums.
How is this ethical?
General Welfare Clause.
...
Please define what authority you think the "general welfare clause" gives congress. Please explain why you believe that the founders specifically enumerated the powers of congress and the federal government, and then included a clause that should be interpreted to mean that they have the power to do anything else beyond that which they believe to be "good".
The amount of Obamacare waivers is up to over 700:
http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html
If this law is so great why are all of Obama's friends getting out of it?
Shouldn't laws be uniformly applied to all of us if its so great?
What an ineffective, unconstitutional, piece of garbage this bill is.
When did less than 1% become all? 2 million people, much less than 1% of all Americans. Most of them are health insurance companies. What makes them Obama's friends? Did you just pull that out of your butt? Try harder.
Nothing here has been invented. It's unfortunate that you don't like the constitution, maybe you could vote to have it ratified?
Yeah... I don't understand what point you are trying to make though. The police exist to protect us from those who would seek to take away our rights to life, liberty, etc.
What year, what company, what board member?
How much would your back surgery have cost your parents had they paid straight cash? How much (dollar value) medical treatment did you get in exchange for how much in premiums?
I'm sorry, but saying, "It cost a lot because that guy wanted a bigger yacht!" doesn't make it so.
What about the doctor that did your back surgery? I'm sure he makes plenty of money. Is it unethical that he gets paid for his services?
Please define what authority you think the "general welfare clause" gives congress. Please explain why you believe that the founders specifically enumerated the powers of congress and the federal government, and then included a clause that should be interpreted to mean that they have the power to do anything else beyond that which they believe to be "good".
If you read the rest of the article you'll find your closely cropped quote has historical legal context which shoots your argument down.
Jefferson said this isn't license to do everything because you say it's "general welfare". There's lots more, but then you would be up to speed, and heavens you wouldn't want that.
Considering that none of the three branches buy your argument, perhaps you too should be sharing your insights with them.