posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:55 AM
In recent times I've stopped reading or posting in these sort of threads because, quite frankly, it's an exercise in futility to debate people who
have their minds made up or simply regurgitate partisan talking points. It's hard to determine at this point if it's just a political argument or a
However, this thread's central theme, if people have since forgotten, was about something I enjoy studying: jurisprudence.
The OP, quoting a latter that someone allegedly sent to Washington, mentioned the illegality and unconstitutional nature of mandated health care. The
argument this person makes, citing cases such as Linder v. United States and Lambert v. Yellowley (incorrectly spelled as Yellowly), is
that the federal government doesn't have the power to take control of medical practices.
It's important to keep in mind that what the bill would do is mandate insurance, and that in itself doesn't have anything to do with medical
practices. Having medical insurance simply insures, pardon the redundancy, people to have a means to pay for a treatment, if they choose to get it,
MidnightDStroyer says that he "oppose[s] any Federal Health Plan because they have to violate the Law to even propose any." He then mentions
the 1st and 2nd Amendments presumably arguing that Congress and the federal Government can't infringe on a person's rights. I have to ask- what
right would mandated health care be infringing upon?
Some people argue mandated health care would be unconstitutional because "it's not in the Constitution." There's no right to be uninsured
either. It's also interesting to note, for example, that most, if not all, states require people to have car insurance in order to drive. Following
the same - flawed in my opinion - logic, requiring people to have car insurance would be unconstitutional as well. And it's beyond reasonable, in my
opinion, to require people to have car insurance if they are going to drive.
What is in the Constitution, however, under Article I Section 8 is "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and
excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." Health care without a doubt falls
under the general welfare clause.
Some might argue that it would be illegal and unconstitutional to make people pay a penalty (through taxes) for not getting health care. That already
happens with Social Security. The precedent has long ago been set, there's no reason then to expect the Supreme Court to declare mandated health care
unconstitutional for this reason. Moreover, it will be possible to apply for hardship deferment considering the financial situation of each person.
For over 70 years the Supreme Court has upheld all government taxes as long as they are reasonable. I don't see any sound reason for a tax to
pay the cost of a system for the common welfare of the United States, health care, to be deemed unreasonable.
There might be many reasons to argue that the health care bill isn't good. After looking at the arguments of unconstitutionality, quite frankly, that
doesn't seem to be a legitimate one.