Is It Legal?
Question: Is it legal for the federal government to force you to purchase a product or service which you do not want and require that you not be able to use it for four years even though they can not guarantee that four years from now you will be alive to use it? Well, I say again, is that legal?
I believe that's a con, a scam. The whole plan is a Ponzi scheme that is no different than Bernard Madoff's. The only difference is Madoff is in prison and Congress isn't.
Right now the plan that I've been hearing is for Republicans to win in November and then not fund the law and repeal it when a new president is elected. I believe that it would be better to repeal it as soon as possible. Politics is too fickle to not try. The only way to do this is to elect a veto-proof Congress and the mood of the country right now makes it look possible.
The House will the "easiest" since all members will be up for re-election, or election in many cases. With a poor economy and greater revelation as to what is in the new law (remember Speaker Pelosi said they had to vote for it to find out what was in it?) there is an excellent possibility that this can be carried out.
The Senate will be the more difficult one. Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election every two years. This means that trying to get a veto-proof Senate is next to impossible because not enough senators will be up for election. That is, unless we do something else to change the odds. Most, if not all, of the states have a method of recall of errant officials. I suggest that the Tea Party and any other interested citizens get out and try to recall their liberal senators if they are not currently up for election.
This will have additional benefits such as forcing them to run when they weren't planning on it, having to raise monies they weren't planning on, and occupying them running for re-election when they otherwise would be in Congress passing more unsound legislation, such as Cap and Trade.
If this is carried out, then care must be made to ensure that they be opposed by solid conservatives who will stand on the principles that this nation was founded on. We need to eliminate progressives from both parties. They have done nothing but try to spend us into financial ruin in an attempt to bring us a womb to tomb existence which will be massive government control of our lives and loss of the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for. I, for one, do not care to be a slave of the government, which is what the result will be if we can not repeal this law and the others that are lined up to follow it.
I believe that's a con, a scam. The whole plan is a Ponzi scheme that is no different than Bernard Madoff's. The only difference is Madoff is in prison and Congress isn't.
Right now the plan that I've been hearing is for Republicans to win in November and then not fund the law and repeal it when a new president is elected. I believe that it would be better to repeal it as soon as possible. Politics is too fickle to not try. The only way to do this is to elect a veto-proof Congress and the mood of the country right now makes it look possible.
The House will the "easiest" since all members will be up for re-election, or election in many cases. With a poor economy and greater revelation as to what is in the new law (remember Speaker Pelosi said they had to vote for it to find out what was in it?) there is an excellent possibility that this can be carried out.
The Senate will be the more difficult one. Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election every two years. This means that trying to get a veto-proof Senate is next to impossible because not enough senators will be up for election. That is, unless we do something else to change the odds. Most, if not all, of the states have a method of recall of errant officials. I suggest that the Tea Party and any other interested citizens get out and try to recall their liberal senators if they are not currently up for election.
This will have additional benefits such as forcing them to run when they weren't planning on it, having to raise monies they weren't planning on, and occupying them running for re-election when they otherwise would be in Congress passing more unsound legislation, such as Cap and Trade.
If this is carried out, then care must be made to ensure that they be opposed by solid conservatives who will stand on the principles that this nation was founded on. We need to eliminate progressives from both parties. They have done nothing but try to spend us into financial ruin in an attempt to bring us a womb to tomb existence which will be massive government control of our lives and loss of the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for. I, for one, do not care to be a slave of the government, which is what the result will be if we can not repeal this law and the others that are lined up to follow it.
Posted by Son of Liberty at 4/7/2010 11:20 PM 
Categories: Healthcare
Tags: Election Progressives Healthcare Conservatives
Categories: Healthcare
Tags: Election Progressives Healthcare Conservatives
Note once again that we should not need the actual numbers to provide effective control of the Senate. If in 2010 we can win such a resounding victory that we take control over 2/3 of the seats in the House and take a majority position in the Senate then we may effectively have a veto proof Congress. 29 Democrat Senators will see their seats in jeopardy in 2012. Given this fact what our majority leader would need to do would be to find 16 of them who would see the necessity to override a presidential veto or risk their jobs in 2012.
Reply to this
I think that the way a campaign is run is highly indicative of how the candidate will handle fiscal responsibilities if elected to office. We should be watching these budgets before we vote. Finances are a big issue now.
Reply to this
Is it legal? Yes, the Mass. state government has made it law that you have health insurance, just as most every state in the Union requires of you, by law, to have car insurance. There is precedence set. It is hard to always hear such polarized opinions on these topics, the thing is, for as much as you may disagree with the health care bill it has also, and will continue to, do a lot of good. To immediate being, the removal of the private sector in student loan lending and allowing our young students to remain under their parents health coverage; two wonderful things that allow education to flourish. With education, not one person will ever be subjected to these fearful words I hear tossed around: "socialism" "communism". The people who were subjected to the tyrannical regimes of the past were largely denied an education, the disheartening part is, we Americans may simply be ignoring an education.
Reply to this
Don't confuse the state with the federal government. Does the federal government have the authority to compel you to have health insurance. I am not familiar with the Massachusetts Constitution but the federal Constitution confers no such authority upon the Congress.
Also do not compare auto insurance with health insurance. States do not require you to have auto insurance unless you request a license to drive. No one who does not drive is forced to purchase auto insurance. There is no right to drive in the Constitution thus the states are free to license it as a privilege and thus confer additional requirements upon those who wish to be licensed.
You may believe the healthcare insurance will do a lot of good but no, the unintended consequences of this type of legislation will eat you alive. How will the medical profession absorb all these new insured patients? What will happen to the insurance companies who currently provide a service for fee when the cost of that service exceeds anything that is affordable to you or me? The total expectation from the onset is to move to a government provided health insurance like has failed all over the world. There will necessarily be rationing and delays in acquiring life saving procedures. There are doctors who have said they will prefer to retire over being regulated and enslaved by the federal government?
What right have you or the state to require that anyone give their labor to the government at a fixed price? No, this is the real definition of tyranny and so many like yourself are not educated enough to see it.
Reply to this
I’m certainly not confused about the separation between federal and state, I’m simply using an act of legislation as example of precedence to answer your question of legality. Just as a state courts rulings could/can be used as precedence in a Supreme Court ruling.
Also, my comparison of health and auto, is again simply to show and answer your titled question of “Is It legal?” As of right now, yes it is, simply based on precedent. You’re right, obviously anyone who is not driving is not paying for auto insurance, yet they pay for roads, bridge construction, infrastructure, etc, they are tacitly paying for things they are not “using.”
Yes, thank you, I understand there is “no right to drive” in the constitution, but there is a right to life; when people’s lives are being put in jeopardy because of outrageous health costs, in a country that could easily afford to provide much of it at little to no cost, because a majority of the service is preventable maintenance (just like owning a car, though I didn’t intend this analogy) it seems deplorable we should ignore that cry. I don’t honestly believe that health INSURANCE is NOT the way to go, but health coverage is. This is a step in the right direction, a humanitarian direction.
I can hear in your writing the feverish pitch at which these arguments directly oppose what you feel are your constitutional rights, I applaud you for exercising your opinion and actively pursuing justice as it is perceived by you, yet, dare you not imply based solely on your personal opinions any mis-education on my part, we may differ on opinion, but you know not of my character.
My point on education was that the regimes of communist and socialist states largely, if not entirely, oppress the right to public education; or the funding of independent education. My point was made clear that this health care bill provides for public education, which therefore makes it a foil of socialist\communist agendas. By removing the middle agents of student loan lending, this bill has freed up 36 billion dollars to be put back into federal pell grants (I would cite my source but you don’t allow HTML). That is money allowing everyone to enjoy an education.
Reply to this
If you aren't confused by the separation between the US Constitution and the Massachusetts Constitution then you wouldn't provide a state example to justify a federal law. The US Constitution confers no authority for the federal government to interfere in the healthcare industry, period. Your precedent as you say is invalid. Your "precedent" that deals with the requirement for auto insurance is a law in many states but it is not a federal law and it does not require everyone to purchase something whether they benefit or not. It is a requirement as I stated before for the privilege of driving in those states. There is no separate policy for children or for anyone who does not drive an automobile. Your examples that you call precedents are not precedents at all. They are poor examples and a demonstration of your lack of critical thinking. While it is true that my tax dollars go toward payments for roads, bridges, etc that I do not personally use such expenditures are the result of appropriating funds for the general welfare as it is intended to be interpreted, for enumerated powers within the Constitution. Refer to the power of the Congress to create Post Roads.
There is a right to life, yes but not in the sense that someone else's labor must be confiscated in order for you to continue that life. Your right to life extends only so far as it could come into conflict with someone else's life. You have a right to remain free from harm from the acts of someone else but you have no right to the preservation of your life at the expense of someone else or their property. If you believe you do, cite your example because I'd be more than a little interested to see your Constitutional justification or precedent for that. Also, while dealing with precedent, the courts may treat precedents as settled law but they are not an intended method for amending the Constitution. Aren't you glad? Imagine if the civil rights laws of this country were to be rendered invalid because of precedents like the Dred Scott Decision.
People's lives that you say are placed in peril because of high health costs requires an examination as to why those costs are so high. I'd refer you to the following posting that was placed on this blog back in February. http://theteapartyplatform.com/2010/01/28/healthcare.aspx This was my first platform item.
As noted in this platform much of the reason for high healthcare costs is interference by government. When government created Medicare and then enacted price controls they caused the cost of healthcare to go up for everybody. When government refuses to introduce tort reform and thus forces doctors to practice defensive medicine; when government requires insurers to insure pre-existing conditions; when government refuses to knock down barriers to competition between states; when government requires hospitals to treat persons who are in this country illegally; the costs of healthcare go up. This is not a judgmental call on whether those things should be done or not, it is a reality.
When scientific advances come to market the costs of healthcare goes up despite the fact that the risks of surgery or death go down. When new drugs are manufactured pharmaceutical companies have a limited time to recover their costs of Research and Development, production and marketing. As effective as these drugs may be they have not only the limited life but also a limited number of people who may require that medication. Thus when these costs are billed to those using the drugs, the cost of healthcare goes up.
Many things cause the cost of healthcare to go up and the best way to make healthcare more affordable is to make the individual the consumer and let those in the healthcare industry compete for the business of consumers who are spending their own dollars. When government controls the dollars and they control the treatment families will take their kids to the doctor for things that used to be treated at home. The result, the cost of healthcare goes up.
There was no malice intended by my statement that what you offer is the real definition of tyranny and so many like yourself are not educated enough to see it. But this was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you do see the tyranny of forcing those in the healthcare industry to give their labor to another and to be controlled by a government of your making then you are guilty of far more than being misguided and uneducated. You are complicit in the tyranny yourself. I stand on my original statement because I do not believe that your intent is to promote tyranny.
The Patriot
Reply to this
The truth is I never comment on these things, because of this exact reason. When two people feel inherently different, there is little words can do; nor for that matter action. Where we disagree it is obvious, but again in your response you have shown no understanding of my original point. Instead you fill voids and fissures of opinion with attacks of character. An escalation of fervor and pitch only raises emotional arguments, no true debate is found at this forum. And it would continue to degrade this way, if I continued to waste my time. I will make my point as layman as possible, so as to hope that you can comprehend what it is I was intending to say:
-There is a significant divide between state and federal government
-Both state and federal systems can be models for each other
-I do NOT approve of shoving health INSURANCE down people's throats
-I do approve of health coverage in a preventative system (if you would like a model independent film, “Salud”)
-I do support the educational benefits of the bill, the erect the populous.
-Education elevates the population above tyranny.
There… elegance is dead.
Reply to this
Cato,
What you describe is the beauty of debate. Your statement is telling when you reference two people feeling differently. I do not feel differently, I believe differently. I challenged your statements because I believe them to be inapplicable. States have powers that the federal government does not have. Therefore how could a precedent of state law guide a determination of whether a federal law is Constitutional? I attacked your point of view. I believe it was poorly thought out. I stated so. This is not an attack on you. It is an attack on your conclusions based upon logic, not feelings.
I do believe I was also clear that I interpreted you as well intentioned. I think I was clear in my statement that I do not believe that your intent was to foist a tyranny on the public but that this will be the consequence of what you promote.
At the same time I attacked your original points. I did not ignore them. I didn't agree with your original points and I told you why. There was nothing in the way of a challenge to your character when I did so. On the other hand your response to my debate was to change the subject and to consider my challenges of your ideas as challenges to your person.
I am passionate about this, yes. If I were not passionate I wouldn't be writing this blog. I see evidence of tyranny all around me and I prefer the freedom that our founders provided. Our form of government "is a republic, if you can keep it," quote Benjamin Franklin. I want to keep it.
Reply to this
You are not a patriot. You are a hard-lined capitalist. Capitalism led to the demise of our country into pure socialism. i.e. Huge bailout... We have made the rest of the world poor for our own sake and you do not even want to help the people in this country who are getting screwed. Good luck in hell bro.
Reply to this