as stated before ITS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. just becasue you say it doesnt make it so. just keep calling the sky red and we'll know how well you comprehend whats being done

It is constitutional to require me to purchase something I do not want? lol you must be thinking of China...

More on the unconstitutionality of mandated health insurance:

Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional
Why an individual mandate could be struck down by the courts.

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington. Such a mandate, however, would expand the federal government’s authority over individual Americans to an unprecedented degree. It is also profoundly unconstitutional.



An individual mandate has been a hardy perennial of health-care reform proposals since HillaryCare in the early 1990s. President Barack Obama defended its merits before Congress last week, claiming that uninsured people still use medical services and impose the costs on everyone else. But the reality is far different. Certainly some uninsured use emergency rooms in lieu of primary care physicians, but the majority are young people who forgo insurance precisely because they do not expect to need much medical care. When they do, these uninsured pay full freight, often at premium rates, thereby actually subsidizing insured Americans.

The mandate's real justifications are far more cynical and political. Making healthy young adults pay billions of dollars in premiums into the national health-care market is the only way to fund universal coverage without raising substantial new taxes. In effect, this mandate would be one more giant, cross-generational subsidy—imposed on generations who are already stuck with the bill for the federal government's prior spending sprees.

Chad Crowe
.Politically, of course, the mandate is essential to winning insurance industry support for the legislation and acceptance of heavy federal regulations. Millions of new customers will be driven into insurance-company arms. Moreover, without the mandate, the entire thrust of the new regulatory scheme—requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and to accept standardized premiums—would produce dysfunctional consequences. It would make little sense for anyone, young or old, to buy insurance before he actually got sick. Such a socialization of costs also happens to be an essential step toward the single payer, national health system, still stridently supported by large parts of the president's base.

The elephant in the room is the Constitution. As every civics class once taught, the federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers, with the states retaining broad regulatory authority. As James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers: "[I]n the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects." Congress, in other words, cannot regulate simply because it sees a problem to be fixed. Federal law must be grounded in one of the specific grants of authority found in the Constitution.

These are mostly found in Article I, Section 8, which among other things gives Congress the power to tax, borrow and spend money, raise and support armies, declare war, establish post offices and regulate commerce. It is the authority to regulate foreign and interstate commerce that—in one way or another—supports most of the elaborate federal regulatory system. If the federal government has any right to reform, revise or remake the American health-care system, it must be found in this all-important provision. This is especially true of any mandate that every American obtain health-care insurance or face a penalty.

The Supreme Court construes the commerce power broadly. In the most recent Commerce Clause case, Gonzales v. Raich (2005) , the court ruled that Congress can even regulate the cultivation of marijuana for personal use so long as there is a rational basis to believe that such "activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce."

But there are important limits. In United States v. Lopez (1995), for example, the Court invalidated the Gun Free School Zones Act because that law made it a crime simply to possess a gun near a school. It did not "regulate any economic activity and did not contain any requirement that the possession of a gun have any connection to past interstate activity or a predictable impact on future commercial activity." Of course, a health-care mandate would not regulate any "activity," such as employment or growing pot in the bathroom, at all. Simply being an American would trigger it.

Health-care backers understand this and—like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen insisting that some hills are valleys—have framed the mandate as a "tax" rather than a regulation. Under Sen. Max Baucus's (D., Mont.) most recent plan, people who do not maintain health insurance for themselves and their families would be forced to pay an "excise tax" of up to $1,500 per year—roughly comparable to the cost of insurance coverage under the new plan.

But Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a "tax" that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by "taxing" anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables.

This type of congressional trickery is bad for our democracy and has implications far beyond the health-care debate. The Constitution's Framers divided power between the federal government and states—just as they did among the three federal branches of government—for a reason. They viewed these structural limitations on governmental power as the most reliable means of protecting individual liberty—more important even than the Bill of Rights.

Yet if that imperative is insufficient to prompt reconsideration of the mandate (and the approach to reform it supports), then the inevitable judicial challenges should. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate "regulatory" taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress's constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress's power to regulate individual Americans. The Supreme Court has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care.

Again?!? declaring something unconstitutional doesnt make it so. FOr example

The color yellow is unconstitutional. My saying it doesnt make it so. Heck we've been paying for medicare for our adult lives and nobody is screaming blood murder and unconstitutionality about it. Its a benefit. I'm willing to be that they'd even allow you to opt out. I know you can opt out of SSN and medicare. However in doing so you'll not ever receive one SSN check or unemployment insurance or any form of public aid. Opt out its your right to screw yourself over. I for one look forward to not having to worry about preexisiting crapola if I change my job. I also like the Idea that the preventative medicine that this insurance will provide will actually make the ER a more efficient place since they wont deal with the common cold any more and will actually deal with EMERGENCIES.

Lets also take a look at what currently happens. The uninsured individual waits until they are on deaths door before seeking help. Always on the assumption that they'll get over their illness. their one stop is the Emergency room. The Emergency room is the most expensive place to seek aid for illness. Since the individual doesnt have insurance it's likely the Hospital will eat the cost of the visit and the gov't gets to pick up the bill. Hmmmm Hmmmmm Who pays taxes to pay for gov't expenses.... Hmmmm WHo is that Oh yeah!!! its you and me. So instead of screwing around with non payments we are actually looking at getting a sick person with gov't insurance into a doctor at an office before it costs $$$ and is easily treated. This reduces the cost of health care for everyone. I can see how the staff of an ER would shrink since they wouldnt have to deal with every knee scrape that comes along. And I can also see how Physician offices would get to bulk up to meet the need of additional clients. Hardly a tragedy here. Just a stable managable Health care system.

Heck I worked at a low cost local Non emergency Dr office in Rockford Illinois about 10 years ago. they made a huge dent in Emergency room visits and increased the availablility of affordable healthcare for the under served. The system works you just have to let it work

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Again?!? declaring something unconstitutional doesnt make it so. FOr example

Again? Simply saying I am wrong does not make it so! You seem it is ok for congress to do whatever it wants under the guise of "gerneral welfare"? Why don't we just write them a blank check and hand over all of our freedoms as well? You trust the government way too much. There are LIMITS in the constitution for a reason!

simply saying you are correct doesnt make it so. I say the color yellow is unconstitutional. The only people that really can dispute constitutionality of things are constitutional experts, typically ACLU lawyers.

Neither author is a constitutional lawyer. David Rivkin is a frightening individual. I read an almost Ayn Rand Paranoia to his work. Only Capitalism is good. Anything that isn't is bad. So as soon as either one of your quoted individuals heads back to law school and gets that degree in Constitutional Law then I'll take it for granted that any problem with publicly paid Insurance can be dealt with in the Federal court system. BTW if they strike down Publicly funded insurance as Unconstitutional then Medicare medicade unemployment insurance and social security are all unconstitutional as well. Good luck with that fight.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

simply saying you are correct doesnt make it so. I say the color yellow is unconstitutional. The only people that really can dispute constitutionality of things are constitutional experts, typically ACLU lawyers.

Neither author is a constitutional lawyer. David Rivkin is a frightening individual. I read an almost Ayn Rand Paranoia to his work. Only Capitalism is good. Anything that isn't is bad. So as soon as either one of your quoted individuals heads back to law school and gets that degree in Constitutional Law then I'll take it for granted that any problem with publicly paid Insurance can be dealt with in the Federal court system. BTW if they strike down Publicly funded insurance as Unconstitutional then Medicare medicade unemployment insurance and social security are all unconstitutional as well. Good luck with that fight.

Wow... I give up. Unless you can point out which part of the consitution gives congress the power to require people to carry health insurance. No, it is not in the preamble... That was the worst idea yet. Following your logic congress has the power to do anything. Is this what you want? I see no point in continuing this.

Enact a $1500 tax on everyone making above a certain income level AND make ALL health insurance premiums (not just those paid by employers) fully deductible.

Problem solved... and the self-insured get a (long overdue) break.

---

Join the PACK!

Enact a $1500 tax on everyone making above a certain income level AND make ALL health insurance premiums (not just those paid by employers) fully deductible.

Problem solved... and the self-insured get a (long overdue) break.

Sounds good to me!

simply saying you are correct doesnt make it so. I say the color yellow is unconstitutional. The only people that really can dispute constitutionality of things are constitutional experts, typically ACLU lawyers.

Neither author is a constitutional lawyer. David Rivkin is a frightening individual. I read an almost Ayn Rand Paranoia to his work. Only Capitalism is good. Anything that isn't is bad. So as soon as either one of your quoted individuals heads back to law school and gets that degree in Constitutional Law then I'll take it for granted that any problem with publicly paid Insurance can be dealt with in the Federal court system. BTW if they strike down Publicly funded insurance as Unconstitutional then Medicare medicade unemployment insurance and social security are all unconstitutional as well. Good luck with that fight.

Wow... I give up. Unless you can point out which part of the consitution gives congress the power to require people to carry health insurance. No, it is not in the preamble... That was the worst idea yet. Following your logic congress has the power to do anything. Is this what you want? I see no point in continuing this.

I'm not going to bother repeating myself. If you can explain why we have Medicare, medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance, and the FDIC maybe we could come to an understanding. I put that out there before and you clearly weren't willing to read that. Health insurance falls under the same auspices of these other fine programs the GOV't created. Tell me again what the difference is between them and universal healthcare

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

simply saying you are correct doesnt make it so. I say the color yellow is unconstitutional. The only people that really can dispute constitutionality of things are constitutional experts, typically ACLU lawyers.

Neither author is a constitutional lawyer. David Rivkin is a frightening individual. I read an almost Ayn Rand Paranoia to his work. Only Capitalism is good. Anything that isn't is bad. So as soon as either one of your quoted individuals heads back to law school and gets that degree in Constitutional Law then I'll take it for granted that any problem with publicly paid Insurance can be dealt with in the Federal court system. BTW if they strike down Publicly funded insurance as Unconstitutional then Medicare medicade unemployment insurance and social security are all unconstitutional as well. Good luck with that fight.

Wow... I give up. Unless you can point out which part of the consitution gives congress the power to require people to carry health insurance. No, it is not in the preamble... That was the worst idea yet. Following your logic congress has the power to do anything. Is this what you want? I see no point in continuing this.

I'm not going to bother repeating myself. If you can explain why we have Medicare, medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance, and the FDIC maybe we could come to an understanding. I put that out there before and you clearly weren't willing to read that. Health insurance falls under the same auspices of these other fine programs the GOV't created. Tell me again what the difference is between them and universal healthcare

Wow, you never read any of my posts... I did not say anything about universal healtcare. We are talking about obamacare and the FACT that it requires people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. You seriously think the prograns you mentioned justify obamacare (the bill currently in congress)? You are saying that since congress has set up so many programs, they can do whatever they want. Again, this is scary!

"Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi's constitutional contempt, perhaps ignorance, is representative of the majority of members of both the House and the Senate. Their comfort in that ignorance and constitutional contempt, and how readily they articulate it, should be worrisome for every single American. It's not a matter of whether you are for or against Congress' health care proposals. It's not a matter of whether you're liberal or conservative, black or white, male or female, Democrat or Republican or member of any other group. It's a matter of whether we are going to remain a relatively free people or permit the insidious encroachment on our liberties to continue. ... In each new session of Congress since 1995, John Shadegg, R-Ariz.,) has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, a measure 'To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.' The highest number of co-sponsors it has ever had in the House of Representatives is 54 and it has never had co-sponsors in the Senate until this year, when 22 senators signed up. The fact that less than 15 percent of the Congress supports such a measure demonstrates the kind of contempt our elected representatives have for the rules of the game -- our Constitution. If you asked the questions: Which way is our nation heading, tiny steps at a time? Are we headed toward more liberty, or are we headed toward greater government control over our lives? I think the answer is unambiguously the latter -- more government control over our lives." --economist Walter E. Williams

I'll tell you like I told Rush. Have an opinion of your own. I don't intend to argue with columnists that aren't here to argue their own points. I do love a good OpEd piece but a contribution by you into the arguement would actually allow me to understand how you feel about a topic. I understand how the columnists feel. They make it perfectly clear. However I find it hard to believe that one can go through life spitting out everyone elses opinions and still not have one of their own.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

However I find it hard to believe that one can go through life spitting out everyone elses opinions and still not have one of their own.

Isn't that what you are trying to do by arguing a point that I am not trying to make? (you have done this several times before) I never mentioned universal heath care yet you used your argument to cover up my point about the bill in congress. And you never responded to what I actually posted. If you do not want to comment on my posts then don't. I am beginning to think you want to censor me because you disagree.

The substitution: "Obamacare"--
is disingenuous...

---

The substitution: "Obamacare"--
is disingenuous...

So is the plan itself. The plan in congress will not make healthcare better or cheaper. It just amounts to wealth distribution.

If you take out all the waste initiated by underinsured or uninsured and you tak them out of the ER and put them in a Drs office to receive care you've astronomically reduced cost. Lets not forget that we are already paying for all the charity cases that end up at the ER now. So instead of paying for these people to get the most expensive visit to a Doctor for the common cold. We'll cut the cost by about 90% by just going to a Drs office. We're not reinventing the wheel. OF course some will still bgo to the ER for non emergency events and they'll have to be told that unless they are dying they need to go to a non Emergency Dr to get treated for their snffles

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

If you take out all the waste initiated by underinsured or uninsured and you tak them out of the ER and put them in a Drs office to receive care you've astronomically reduced cost.

So why aren't they going to the Dr's office now? Could it be the silly rule against Dr's advertising? Could it be that most Dr's are refusing new patients? Could it be there aren't enough Dr's to go around?

Lets not forget that we are already paying for all the charity cases that end up at the ER now.

Ah, these one who can't afford it are the ones who will have to buy it, or at gunpoint pay it on their taxes. I'm beginning to understand.

So instead of paying for these people to get the most expensive visit to a Doctor for the common cold. We'll cut the cost by about 90% by just going to a Drs office.

Except most Dr's are not accepting new patients, at least they weren't when I had to pick one for my employers plan. God what a snafu that is!

We're not reinventing the wheel. OF course some will still bgo to the ER for non emergency events and they'll have to be told that unless they are dying they need to go to a non Emergency Dr to get treated for their snffles

Oh I get it, deny and delay care. Yes that drops costs.

---

If you take out all the waste initiated by underinsured or uninsured and you tak them out of the ER and put them in a Drs office to receive care you've astronomically reduced cost.

So why aren't they going to the Dr's office now? Could it be the silly rule against Dr's advertising? Could it be that most Dr's are refusing new patients? Could it be there aren't enough Dr's to go around?

Lets not forget that we are already paying for all the charity cases that end up at the ER now.

Ah, these one who can't afford it are the ones who will have to buy it, or at gunpoint pay it on their taxes. I'm beginning to understand.

So instead of paying for these people to get the most expensive visit to a Doctor for the common cold. We'll cut the cost by about 90% by just going to a Drs office.

Except most Dr's are not accepting new patients, at least they weren't when I had to pick one for my employers plan. God what a snafu that is!

We're not reinventing the wheel. OF course some will still bgo to the ER for non emergency events and they'll have to be told that unless they are dying they need to go to a non Emergency Dr to get treated for their snffles

Oh I get it, deny and delay care. Yes that drops costs.

1) Drs have a right to refuse to treat a patient without insurance or a particular type of insurance. THe only option for the underinsured is the ER.
2) sarcasm gets you no credit on this topic. Please Note I and you are currently paying for it already. wouldnt hurt if someone put their own dime in
3)Think about this. ER's will be treating Emergencies... They won't need dozens of caregivers. Guess what happens. They are asked to do other work. guess where the need will be? family/general practice. also note, with 1 payer you don't have to worry about your doctor accepting your insurance. Since you'll have the only insurance.
4)Deny and delay? Ever hear of triage. cases deamed non emergencies get referred to primary care providers. Hmmm ever hear of having a primary care provider. There is no deny and delay. the person will be referred back to their own doctor. Please stop reinventing the wheel. You make the health care system seem so difficult to manage. in its current state its a disaster.

Heck What would be much more informative that some hoohah claiming crap about healthcare, would be an actual EUropean or Canadian to chime in. Heck we've already heard from them. without fault theirs is a superior system to ours. I'd like to have a country where a person never files bancruptcy because of overwhleming medical bills. the last I checked every country that has socialized medicince can claim 100% of medical patients have never filed for bancruptcy over medical bills.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

If you take out all the waste initiated by underinsured or uninsured and you tak them out of the ER and put them in a Drs office to receive care you've astronomically reduced cost.

So why aren't they going to the Dr's office now? Could it be the silly rule against Dr's advertising? Could it be that most Dr's are refusing new patients? Could it be there aren't enough Dr's to go around?

Lets not forget that we are already paying for all the charity cases that end up at the ER now.

Ah, these one who can't afford it are the ones who will have to buy it, or at gunpoint pay it on their taxes. I'm beginning to understand.

So instead of paying for these people to get the most expensive visit to a Doctor for the common cold. We'll cut the cost by about 90% by just going to a Drs office.

Except most Dr's are not accepting new patients, at least they weren't when I had to pick one for my employers plan. God what a snafu that is!

We're not reinventing the wheel. OF course some will still bgo to the ER for non emergency events and they'll have to be told that unless they are dying they need to go to a non Emergency Dr to get treated for their snffles

Oh I get it, deny and delay care. Yes that drops costs.

1) Drs have a right to refuse to treat a patient without insurance or a particular type of insurance. THe only option for the underinsured is the ER.

So "This note is legal tender for all debits public and private" isn't. Perhaps this should be fixed before we do anything else.

2) sarcasm gets you no credit on this topic. Please Note I and you are currently paying for it already. wouldnt hurt if someone put their own dime in

So you think the additional tax revenue from money changing hands and creating income tax is going to be more than the cost of the public subsidy. Somehow with more bureaucrats being hired I suspect it will just cost more.

3)Think about this. ER's will be treating Emergencies... They won't need dozens of caregivers. Guess what happens. They are asked to do other work. guess where the need will be? family/general practice. also note, with 1 payer you don't have to worry about your doctor accepting your insurance. Since you'll have the only insurance.

Wow. Aren't the doctors there already? So now we have to move them into private offices and rent the space and somehow it will cost less. Or did you mean to pay a bunch of doctors to sit around with their thumbs up where the sun don't shine while they wait for the next car crash?

4)Deny and delay? Ever hear of triage. cases deamed non emergencies get referred to primary care providers. Hmmm ever hear of having a primary care provider. There is no deny and delay. the person will be referred back to their own doctor.

So all the wasted time isn't delay. The go elsewhere isn't deny. If you say so.

Please stop reinventing the wheel. You make the health care system seem so difficult to manage. in its current state its a disaster.

What no one is saying is what medical care was like in the USA before insurance. It was available and reasonably priced. It stayed available and reasonably priced until the era of the HMO/PPO. That is what needs to be eliminated to fix health care in the USA.

Heck What would be much more informative that some hoohah claiming crap about healthcare, would be an actual EUropean or Canadian to chime in. Heck we've already heard from them. without fault theirs is a superior system to ours. I'd like to have a country where a person never files bancruptcy because of overwhleming medical bills. the last I checked every country that has socialized medicince can claim 100% of medical patients have never filed for bancruptcy over medical bills.

And why is not going bankrupt over medical costs better? Darwin's laws should be allowed to operate on humans. Can't support yourself and your DNA shouldn't be passed on.

---