That is only like 60% of the reason.
Ok, 80%.
None of these things are the same as the government forcing me to buy their health insurance. I’m aware that I’ll be paying for it thru my taxes, but I do hope that I will not also be forced to actually buy a policy as well.
Stick to tax law counselor. First of all, the federal constitution gives general welfare power in at least two places. Second, I never said the feds couldn’t regulate anything affecting interstate commerce there is a long line of cases saying they can.
The three constitutional attacks I see as possible are the mandate on individuals, reconciliation and “pass and deem” which I hadn’t even heard of until this last week. Reconciliation is the weakest of those arguments in my humble opinion.
I’m going out on a limb. From what he’s indicated, he has no grievance.
Of course. Show me where the Constitution say it can’t. You already have to buy auto insurance.
Do you drive a car?
According to the AARP it will cost us over a billion in federal funds, hundreds of jobs, millions more to fight in court and we’ll lose the fight anyway. Too bad I will not be around to see it because I lost my insurance, my paceer/defibrillator is dying and I don’t have upwords of one hundred thousand dollars to replace it. I’ve told my hubby to send the sactimious asshole who introducted that bill my ashes.
The guy who wrote ours fucked it up so bad that now Idahoans won’t be required to carry liability insurance either without a lawsuit.
Last I checked, that isn’t true - you can also put up a bond. Plus, you are only required to cover what you might do to others, not what you might do to yourself. Again, unless things have changed.
The impeccable partisan pedigree of “deem and Pass”
Republicans have used “Deem and Pass” more than 100 times since 1994.
A couple of irrelevant distinctions without any Constitutional significance. Sorry, but the Constitutution doesn’t prevent the federal government from forcing you to buy health insurance, and the federal government can do anything the Consititution doesn’t forbid it from doing. This angle is a complete non-starter until you can show what Constitutional right you think is being violated (here’s a hint: It’s none).
Yes, but it is the state government that requires automobile insurance. The federal government is a government of limited powers that are enumerated in the federal constitution.
WTF? Cite?
No it isn’t, but this is a common misconception.
The Consitution. If it’s not unconstitutinal, it’s Constitutional.
Thank you. I’ll have to remember that. It is very enlightening. Like Fox News.
Headlines Obama Rebukes The Cooch!
Entertainment news: Michele Obama and Dr. Phil, special 4 hour emergency Oprah marathon…
This is frustrating, because you
a) recognize that the Constitution give the federal government the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, and
b) acknowledge that the way the proposed individual mandate will be enforced is through a tax imposed on those without insurance.
Yet you still, in a very imprecise and unclear way, express a worry that this may be unconstitutional. How?
Exactly. And passing a law that says it is specifically legally okay to rape your daughters doesn’t encourage anyone to do that. :rolleyes:
You’re a fucking idiot.
this is curlcoat. she thinks that helping indigent people with healthcare is impermissible government welfare, but sitting on her ass and doing her double-chin exercises while she collects SSDI is merely her recovery of an insurance program she paid for.