Where does the constitution give Congress power to set up national health care?

[thereisnospoon]

Since the ACA isn't anything close to "National Healthcare" (I wish), your "point" is moot.

There is that "regulate interstate commerce" thang as well as that "lay taxes" thang.

Why do you want national health care insurance?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Someone should ask the SCOTUS.

About what?

 

[hazlnut]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

Your opinion on the bill is meaningless.

You are not Supreme Court Justice, and therefore we wipe our asses with your opinion.

ACA has been upheld by SCOTUS.

You don't like our system of checks and balances, then get the fuck outta this country.







ACA has been upheld by SCOTUS.

 

[Londoner]

I want affordable national health insurance because it's the best way to move the ill-begotten government awarded monopoly profits of the health industry back to middle class consumer demand, which demand is necessary for capital to start reinvesting in our domestic economy, which economy was destroyed by the bursting of our 30 year credit-boom. (Yes we put the middle class on credit after shipping their jobs to China and shredding their safety nets). FYI: I want to get to affordable health costs not through ObamaCare, but by busting up the crusty monopolies that exist in nearly every sub-sector from pharma to insurance and hospital care.

As it stands, the unprecedented inflation in health care has moved money from consumer demand into the pockets of a non-competitive, wildly inefficient health care system which does the opposite of what Reagan promised: raise prices while diminishing services. Our health care system looks an awful lot like our comically rigged cable TV & internet market, which, through intensive lobbying, has divided the nation into fixed no-compete zones. In large sections of the country, it allows cable companies to raise prices and diminish services without fear of losing customers to the competition (aka being disciplined by the market). In California, cable companies like Cox and Charter have set up an anti-consumer rats nets. Their investors are making bank - which is the point of monopoly capitalism - but the consumer is being raped because he can't afford lobbyists to protect his interests - nor does he have a FOX News to distract people with gay marriage and underwear bombs.

Does that mean I like ObamaCare? Nope. That just feeds the schmucks into overpriced providers.

It's sad. There is an underground tunnel between Congress and the Drug Companies. Has anyone researched the shinanigans between Eli Lilly and the Republican Congress during the passage of the terribly corrupt 2003 Drug Bill? The number of Congressmen who become lobbyists is comical. Both sides of the aisle play the game. I can't keep up with who Tom Daschel or Newt Gingrich works for now, but it makes no difference. The market winners own government through election funding and lobbying - big business and Washington have become one. Our problem is that Rightwing media sources refuse to talk about this stuff because they are so deeply attached to the profit makers. As a result, the Republican voter doesn't know that government has literally been absorbed by the most powerful market actors, who have put our government officials on the pay roll. When someone votes against the interests of the Koch brothers, they are removed in a Primary.The Coup is complete.

Rather than getting money out of politics and restoring competition to our terribly rigged markets, we are pummeled with horror stories about gay atheist mexican islamo communist demons. Orwell predicted that the powerful would capture government and then distract the people with misinformation . . . but who knew we were this stupid.

 

[OKTexas]

Since the ACA isn't anything close to "National Healthcare" (I wish), your "point" is moot.

There is that "regulate interstate commerce" thang as well as that "lay taxes" thang.

Health insurance was never sold interstate and that lay taxes thang is an unconstitutional direct tax.

 

[shintao]

It doesn't. But it doesn't have to. Your point?

You do understand that the US Constitution is a limiting document, do you not?

No, where does it say that in the constitution?

 

[OKTexas]

It doesn't. But it doesn't have to. Your point?

You do understand that the US Constitution is a limiting document, do you not?

No, where does it say that in the constitution?

See the 9th and 10th Amendments.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

It doesn't. But it doesn't have to. Your point?

Yes it does have to. That's what the 10A is about. Congress has only the powers listed in the constitution. All else is a state issue.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Its not unconstitutional.

SCOTUS said so.

The End.

By claiming it is a tax.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

Your opinion on the bill is meaningless.

You are not Supreme Court Justice, and therefore we wipe our asses with your opinion.

ACA has been upheld by SCOTUS.

You don't like our system of checks and balances, then get the fuck outta this country.







ACA has been upheld by SCOTUS.

Were you not in agreement with the OP that stated we do not need a senate. That opinion based on the OP's frustration about Obama not getting Congress to pass his agenda?
And did you not agree with the OP that stated Congress' job was to pass what the POTUS wanted passed?
Now you are yapping about checks and balances?
BTW, you are so wrong on many levels.
SCOTUS ruling on ACA being a tax rather than commerce was limited to that scope.
The ruling gave ACA no immunity from congressional challenge.

 

[shintao]

Since the ACA isn't anything close to "National Healthcare" (I wish), your "point" is moot.

There is that "regulate interstate commerce" thang as well as that "lay taxes" thang.

Why do you want national health care insurance?

Actually, I want 100% National Health Care for America, not the capitalist screwed up version Obama is pushing for congress. But it is a foot in the door approach that America always takes toward an end, so it will eventually get there.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Its not unconstitutional.

SCOTUS said so.

The End.

And where does the constituton say the federal supreme court decides the constitutionality of all laws.? Answer - The big C does not directly say who has that power so again, by the tenth amendment, the states have the authority.

Letting one federal agency (the supreme court) decide whether laws of another federal agency (congress) are constitutional is idiotic since they will rubberstamp everything. The FF saw that and so they wrote the tenth amendment. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Since the ACA isn't anything close to "National Healthcare" (I wish), your "point" is moot.

There is that "regulate interstate commerce" thang as well as that "lay taxes" thang.

Where is your evidence that health care is interstate commerce?

please think

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The law gives them the power and if the interpreter of Constitutional law, the Supreme Court, upholds it it's a done deal no matter how bad it is.

HAHAHA. uranidiot. Only the constitution can give congress the power and it doesn't do that. The constitution also does not give the power to interpret the constitution to the Supreme Court. You say it does - show us.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It doesn't. But it doesn't have to. Your point?

You do understand that the US Constitution is a limiting document, do you not?

No, where does it say that in the constitution?

The entire document was written for the express purpose of limiting the power of government.
The concept was that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.
That the people are protected by this limiting document from the tyranny of democracy and tyranny of an all encompassing government.
Finally the Tenth Amendment spells this out in plain English.....
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What that means is, now pay attention because this is the last time you will get this explanation, is this. That if the Constitution does not state that the federal government "may" or "shall" it CANNOT.
The entire premise of this idea is that individuals have God given rights. The Constitution was written to speel out that idea and to insure those in government were well informed. The government serves the people. Not the other way around.
I cannot believe any person of reasonable intelligence would believe that government can basically do what it wants with impunity. Do you believe that?
If not, please explain your interpretation of how things are.
Oh. Here in this link is the explanation of enumerated powers.
This should be the end of your silly notion that the federal government has unlimited power.
Federalism | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

The Supreme Court disagrees, and they determine what is or is not Constitutional, not you and other partisan rightists, thankfully.

And the ACA does not constitute ‘national healthcare.’

 

[thereisnospoon]

Since the ACA isn't anything close to "National Healthcare" (I wish), your "point" is moot.

There is that "regulate interstate commerce" thang as well as that "lay taxes" thang.

Why do you want national health care insurance?

Actually, I want 100% National Health Care for America, not the capitalist screwed up version Obama is pushing for congress. But it is a foot in the door approach that America always takes toward an end, so it will eventually get there.

What is your interpretation of "national heath insurance"( please stop calling it healthcare).
How would you propose to fund an insurance system for 320 million people? Who would pay? Who would be exempt? How would your system compensate all medical professionals who under your national health insurance system would be de facto federal employees?
How would your system reconcile the true costs of medical , technological research and development of new techniques, equipment and medicines?
How would your system control the cost of an education in the medical fields?
How would your system compensate colleges and universities of medicine?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[ And in cases where there were very complex issues, like whether there is a conflict between the commerce clause and the individual mandate (which the court so found) or whether enforcement of the mandate falls under Congress's ability to tax... our Founding Fathers put their faith in the courts to adjudicate these disputes r.

What a liar you are. No where did the FF say nor does the constitution say the courts have final say on every issue. If anything, the tenth amendment says final say is with the states or the people.

The states should simply nullify obozocare. Some are doing just that.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

The Supreme Court disagrees, and they determine what is or is not Constitutional, not you and other partisan rightists, thankfully.

And the ACA does not constitute ‘national healthcare.’

ACA is a precursor or even a means to the end which is a single payer system.
The only reason ACA even exists is because Obama was told he'd never get away with ramming a single payer system down our throats.

 

[idb]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

The Supreme Court disagrees, and they determine what is or is not Constitutional, not you and other partisan rightists, thankfully.

And the ACA does not constitute ‘national healthcare.’

ACA is a precursor or even a means to the end which is a single payer system.
The only reason ACA even exists is because Obama was told he'd never get away with ramming a single payer system down our throats.

Tricksie little Kenyan!