My God, this ground is so covered already…
If it’s not a tax, then it pretty clearly violates the Commerce Clause.
If it is, it violates the requirement for apportionment.
This bill is going down like Madonna on her honeymoon.
*(For the record, the Missouri thing was just for show, it also will be overruled based on Federal pre-emption. But the Dems ignore it at their peril this Nov.)
It’s not a bill anymore.
It doesn’t force citizens to hand money over to private businesses. It just imposes a punitive tax if they don’t.
You are only forced to purchase car insurance if you own and drive a car and IIRC this is not a federal law, but one mandated by each state individually.
Why should paying a private business get me out of paying a tax to the government? This is just run-around the issue bullshit and that is the problem with politics.
By 2016 the phase-in stage will be over and the penalty will be $750 per year. According to paycheckcity.com someone working minimum wage ($15,080 annually) will bring in $983 in a month claiming 1 voluntary deduction. The penalty alone would be 6% of that, and good luck finding health insurance for $62 a month. So now anyone who cannot afford health insurance that falls into this category in effect gets a 6% tax increase. Imagine if a politician tried to pass a 6% tax increase on people earning minimum wage without disguising the law with some fancy political mumbo jumbo.
On a side note I am aware that part of the plan subsidizes people below the poverty line however I was unable to find any clear details. Now perhaps in your next post you could explain to me WHY an individual mandate is necessary, health care is not a right.
Since when is a child someone under the age of 26?
That’s your opinion. We are essentially alone among developed countries in failing to insure all of our citizens.
I didn’t say it was my opinion, I’m indifferent on the issue of health care as a right. It is not in the constitution which means it is not a legal right. Now if we as a society think it SHOULD be a right, then it should be added to the constitution, and it should be properly protected. The current bill which passed is far from fair. I also want to point out that our other rights, can be waived. Ever hear a police officer say “you have the right to remain silent”? You also have the right not to be silent, why do I NOT have the right to opt out of health care starting in 2014?
The Constitution itself says that this line of reasoning is invalid.
Interesting that you should point out Miranda rights. Where do they appear in the Constitution?
5th Amendment–protection from self-incrimination.
How is anything a “right” if it requires other citizens to provide that right to each other? This healthcare BS by necessity will take taxes to supply the health insurance to all citizens. True rights do not diminish the rights of one person to provide for another. Forcibly taking one’s private property (income) to provide health care for others is tyranny.
I am proud to have been among the 71 percent of Missourians to vote yes on Prop. C.
How is anything a “right” if it doesn’t require citizens to provide that right to each other?
And being ignorant of the fact that a proposition is unconstitutional is nothing to be proud of.
Do we have a right to food? Surely if we have a right to health care because of the General Welfare clause (as you stated in post #17), then we also have a right to food. There are some in our society who eat much better quality food than others. We need government intervention NOW to equalize that discrepancy. If that requires taxing all to provide for all, then I know you will all support that.
Besides that, your assertion re: general welfare is incorrect. At least according to James Madison.
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”
–James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 Madison 1865, I, page 546
All have a right to life. All have a right to liberty. All have a right to the pursuit of happiness. None of these require that anything be taken from anyone else. The laws of our nation should simply exist to ensure that others do not take any of these rights from us. Our government’s sole purpose is to protect those rights for our citizens and do nothing else.
Where exactly does the constitution say that we have additional legal rights, which are not mentioned explicitly in it? If you want to have a real discussion, please cite this and anything else that directly opposes something contained in my post. I’m willing to change my opinions/beliefs but not due to an internet forum post which contains no facts.
You can find a copy of the constitution online at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html or elsewhere if you google.
Now you are probably looking at the 9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
From wikipedia (cite included)
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated as follows in Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 537 (6th Cir. 1991):
[T]he ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law. The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
As far as I know, medical marijuana laws don’t actually obstruct enforcement of federal marijuana law in any way. All they do is say that state and local governments won’t assist the FBI and DEA in enforcing it. The states, of course, realize that the FBI has better things to do than go around arresting potheads on the street, so they know that most people will be de facto safe from prosecution.
It’s like those cop shows where the Feds come in to the local police station and say, “This is a Federal matter. We’re taking over this case now.” The medical marijuana laws basically say that when the Feds come in to the local police station for help busting potheads, the locals can say, “This is a Federal matter. You’re taking over this case now.” 
However, I wonder if desuetude might actually become a defense against marijuana prosecutions under federal law in states like California. The rules for a law falling into desuetude are:
[ul]
[li]The statute proscribes only acts that are malum prohibitum and not malum in se;[/li][li]There has been open, notorious and pervasive violation of the statute for a long period; and[/li][li]There has been a conspicuous policy of nonenforcement of the statute.[/li][/ul]
I think the courts would agree that marijuana is malum prohibitum. There has certainly been open, notorious, and pervasive violation of federal marijuana law in California for some time. And President Obama has actually directed the Justice Department not to prosecute medical marijuana cases in states where it’s legal. I’d say that’s 3 out of 3.
To say “It is not in the constitution which means it is not a legal right” is to construe the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution to deny or disparage other rights retained by the People.
So give me a couple examples of these rights you claim in Post #32 must necessarily take from some people in order to be provided to others.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
Your taxing me to go hunting infringes upon my right to a well regulated militia.
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
There are a finite number of attorneys available. Your “right” to have one free of charge takes away my ability to find one and pay for his or her services.
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
Stupid anchor babies. They come here and steal my jobs!
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote
Amendment 19 - Women’s Suffrage
As a White male who owns land, I feel that these amendments did nothing for me. Every additional person who is elligible to participate in an election takes power away from my vote.
Want me to go on? There are 22 more rationales I can pull from my ass.
Please do. You are showing your underlying (or maybe blatant) disdain for constitutional conservatives by generalizing them as racially-motivated and I find it kinda humorous.