reply to post by kozmo
If you want to continue this dance regarding the Constitution, I would be more than happy to continue.
Very well, On to the constitutionality of the proposed legislation as it is written.
In Article 1 Section 8 it states...
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Furthermore it continues...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
as you can see, congress does have the right to regulate the Health Care industry. It also is charged with providing for the general Welfare of the
United States.
Welfare
1 : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity
2 a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed
One must also question the reason this word is capitalized within the constitution. The broader wording in the constitution makes the case that
congress has the duty to regulate the health insurance industry and has every right to tell the insurance companies that they cannot deny people based
on a pre existing condition.
Onto the bill at hand...
H.R.3962
Under this general legislation there is also the so called
Subtitle
B--Public Health Insurance Option
Establishment- For years beginning with Y1, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the `Secretary') shall
provide for the offering of an Exchange-participating health benefits plan (in this division referred to as the `public health insurance option')
that ensures choice, competition, and stability of affordable, high quality coverage throughout the United States in accordance with this subtitle. In
designing the option, the Secretary's primary responsibility is to create a low-cost plan without compromising quality or access to care.
Frankly I can't see anything that is unconstitutional about this bill. Congress has the right to tell these insurance companies they cannot deny
service. They also are charged with the general welfare of the united states. So given those two mandates the reforms that congress is proposing does
seem at least to me quite legal and constitutional.
Perhaps you can find something specific that is decidedly unconstitutional about the entire proposed legislation. I certainly cannot.
[edit on 11/10/2009 by whatukno]
