House passes health care reform bill; Vote garners only one Republican, page 8
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 03:10 PM by kozmo
reply to post by whatukno


On the contrary... everything I proposed was nothing short of critical thinking. If you want to continue this dance regarding the Constitution, I would be more than happy to continue. This is an area that has occupied a significant portion of my education and been the subject of countless research papers that I have composed and submitted for review.

You may wish to dismiss, simply out-of-hand, that it is tired right-wing brainwashing - or whatever you chose to lable it. But, I hate to inform you that is simple fact - AND the supreme law of this great Republic.

It appears that the liberal zeal for "progressivism" is what dominates the desire for the Constitution to be "living, breathing entity that changes over time." How conveniently that you all ignore the fact that there are VERY SPECIFIC remedies on the books for AMMENDING the Constitution. Hence the term "AMMENDMENT".

How politically expendient it would be if the "Progressives" could just simply decide, on a whim, to interperet the Constitution in any manner than supported their agenda. Fortunately, it does NOT! In order for Congress to exercise any level of authority on this matter would require an Ammendment to the Constitution - and on that front - I wish you all the very best of luck! Currently, it affords the legislature no such authorty over such matters.


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 03:18 PM by marg6043
reply to post by whatukno


Actually already members of congress that are against the health care bill mandates are going to challenge the constitutionality of it, because in order for the government to get away from putting mandates on this health care bill it actually will have to amend the constitution, this will become an issue of people vs the government it could reach the supreme court.



[edit on 10-11-2009 by marg6043]


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 11:38 PM by whatukno
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]

Pages: <<  5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^