APP - The proof that Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional

[artichoke]

1) The Federal Government has no authority to even be involved in health care under the Constitution in the first place.

It is a matter of record that the Constitution was ratified as a strict, narrowly-defined enumeration of federal powers. Anything not specifically spelled out in it as a federal power is a federal power that does not exist, and that must be left to the state and local levels.

The Framers identified each Congressional power in Article I, Section 8 (why would they do this if the General Welfare and Commerce clauses granted Congress a blank check to do whatever it wants?), and even added the 10th Amendment to further clarify that this is all it is authorized to do.

When the Architect of the Constitution himself, James Madison, was confronted with an attempt to illegally expand federal powers based on such clauses in 1817, he responded by emphatically condemning it as a lawless attempt to shred our Founding document. He also explained that the Constitution would never have been ratified in the first place if anyone involved had mistaken it to mean something so broad.

He clarified that the powers of the federal government are “few and defined,” and that the rights of the states and The People were “numerous and indefinite.” He went on to explain that such baseless butchery of what was implemented by the Founders would render “the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would give the Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them.”

The General Welfare Clause was added to the Preamble merely to explain the purpose of this new Federal Government being created, and again to the Taxing and Spending Clause of Article I, Section 8, to enable Congress to raise funds for its authorized activities under the Constitution. This in no way changes what Congress was authorized to do.

Everything else that is illegal about Obamacare, like the Medicaid mandate, which SCOTUS struck down, is secondary. The author of the Constitution himself is on the record emphatically denying that laws like Obamacare were ever intended or authorized to exist at the federal level in the first place.

2) Obamacare violates the Origination Clause.

The Origination Clause states that “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” With important modifications, the Origination Clause applied to Congress a legislative rule borrowed from the British Parliament and from several state legislatures.

The meaning of the Origination Clause as the founders understood it is as follows:

Only a representative, not a senator, may introduce a tax bill.
The bill must pass the House before going to the Senate.
However, the Senate (unlike the British House of Lords) is not bound to simply accept or reject whatever the House passes. The Senate may “amend” tax bills before passing them.
The House must approve any amendments.
The Senate’s power to “amend” permits it to change the bill as to any subject matter it already covers. But adding new subject matter, such as adding regulations or appropriations to a pure revenue bill, is outside the scope of the Senate’s power to amend.

The Senate created Obamacare by seizing a minor revenue bill that had passed the House, stripping out its contents, inserting new taxes (which it had the power to do), and adding some permanent appropriations and a Goldbergian regulatory scheme — which it had no power to do.

A purported “law” passed in violation of the Origination Clause is void. However, for a court to invalidate such a measure, litigation must be brought by the proper plaintiffs and on the correct legal theory. Previous Origination Clause plaintiffs lost because they attacked Obamacare’s taxes instead of its regulations. Plaintiffs suing for relief from regulations that harm them may have more success.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Obamacare is an abomination.

But, let's be clear. It was never designed to work. It was never intended to work. It was nothing more than a vehicle to crash the current system and frustrate consumers leaving them to "beg" for gobblement paid healthcare.

That is how insidious leftists are

 

[artichoke]

Obamacare is an abomination.

But, let's be clear. It was never designed to work. It was never intended to work. It was nothing more than a vehicle to crash the current system and frustrate consumers leaving them to "beg" for gobblement paid healthcare.

That is how insidious leftists are

No one who actually read the bill could ever reach any other conclusion.

 

[montgomery]

Obamacare is an abomination.

But, let's be clear. It was never designed to work. It was never intended to work. It was nothing more than a vehicle to crash the current system and frustrate consumers leaving them to "beg" for gobblement paid healthcare.

That is how insidious leftists are

No, that's incorrect. It was originally going to be the foot in the door for universal health care for all the American people, but the Republicans represented the needs and the greed of big insurance corporations that have gotten filthy rich off the backs of the people.

In any case, it's now unstoppable and will always be truly known as Obamacare, even though some will attempt to call it something else.

Would you like to talk about universal health care with a Canadian?

 

[artichoke]

No, that's incorrect. It was originally going to be the foot in the door for universal health care for all the American people, but the Republicans represented the needs and the greed of big insurance corporations that have gotten filthy rich off the backs of the people.

Translation: Republicans being economically literate (and preferring to follow the Constitution) instead of trying to bankrupt and destroy insurance companies and then acting surprised when everyone's costs skyrocket, the poor get hurt the worst (as with all Democrat policies), and everyone but the super-rich gets robbed blind...is them "representing greed." This is garbage class warfare propaganda that doesn't survive even a moment of serious scrutiny.

In any case, it's now unstoppable and will always be truly known as Obamacare, even though some will attempt to call it something else.

Wrong again. No one wants to take the train wreck that is Obamacare away from Obama. Aside from putting grown men in showers and bathrooms with little girls, this unmitigated policy disaster (which destroyed a system that more than 80% of Americans were happy with, based entirely on a made-up crisis) is his legacy.

Would you like to talk about universal health care with a Canadian?

Would you like to discuss why your Belinda Stronach had to fly to the States to get treated for breast cancer?

Proof That Those International Health Care Comparisons Are Bogus

 

[artichoke]

Side note: I thought not derailing threads was a rule. None of this has anything to do with the legality of Obamacare, which was the topic.

 

[montgomery]

Translation: Republicans being economically literate (and preferring to follow the Constitution) instead of trying to bankrupt and destroy insurance companies and then acting surprised when everyone's costs skyrocket, the poor get hurt the worst (as with all Democrat policies), and everyone but the super-rich gets robbed blind...is them "representing greed." This is garbage class warfare propaganda that doesn't match reality.

Wrong again. No one wants to take the train wreck that is Obamacare away from Obama. Aside from putting grown men in showers and bathrooms with little girls, this unmitigated policy disaster (which destroyed a system that more than 80% of Americans were happy with, based entirely on a made-up crisis) is his legacy.

Would you like to discuss why your Belinda Stronach had to fly to the States to get treated for breast cancer?

Proof That Those International Health Care Comparisons Are Bogus

First of all Arminius, we'll just have to skip right to the facts and dispense with all the false notions and mistruths. Not that I don't have an obvious answer for all of them, but just to say that it's a waste of my time. If you're insistent on discussing one of your objections at a time then I'll get around to giving you some answers.

But jumping right to the truth: Universal health care throughout the world is far superior to US for profit health care, and it looks after all a country's people. That's the part that's not debatable. Oh, and Canada's, which isn't anywhere near the best of the universal health care systems, can do it for a little more than half the cost of yours, per capita.

As to your question on Belinda Stronach, she likely chose to spend a huge amount of money to receive her treatment the next day. You can do the same if you want the very best the world has to offer, by going to Singapore. On your own dime of course! We've already established that about 50,000 Canadians go to other countries for some procedures on our government's dime mostly. While at the same time millions of Americans flea the US system on their own dime because it's the only way they can afford the treatment they require.

You're lucky to have a Canadian to talk to Arminius. Let's talk and learn more if you like!

 

[montgomery]

Side note: I thought not derailing threads was a rule. None of this has anything to do with the legality of Obamacare, which was the topic.

It is a rule here. If you have some objection to something being discussed then it's up to you to make the complaint. I'm more of the opinion that we just maintain some civility and decency and allow free flow of conversations. At least until it gets to the point of being too abusive to contend with. And of course, that's what they will be trying next. What is it that you're objecting to?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

No, that's incorrect. It was originally going to be the foot in the door for universal health care for all the American people, but the Republicans represented the needs and the greed of big insurance corporations that have gotten filthy rich off the backs of the people.

In any case, it's now unstoppable and will always be truly known as Obamacare, even though some will attempt to call it something else.

Would you like to talk about universal health care with a Canadian?

I would be happy to talk about medical care if you can do so without resorting to faulty premises. If you premise is that everyone has a RIGHT to healthcare, then we need not bother because it is a faulty premise and not worth arguing. If you would like to argue how medical care is best delivered and paid for then I am all for it.

It all depends on your underlying premise.

 

[montgomery]

I would be happy to talk about medical care if you can do so without resorting to faulty premises. If you premise is that everyone has a RIGHT to healthcare, then we need not bother because it is a faulty premise and not worth arguing. If you would like to argue how medical care is best delivered and paid for then I am all for it.

It all depends on your underlying premise.

My underlying premise it that everybody has a right to the very best health care a country can offer to it's people. And definitely not, better health care for the wealthy white people and substandard care for the poor black people. My position on that is set in stone and so there doesn't appear to be any possibility of a conversation with you at this time. If your position is amended sometime in the future then it will be up to you to notify me if you wish any further comments from me on health care.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

My underlying premise it that everybody has a right to the very best health care a country can offer to it's people. And definitely not, better health care for the wealthy white people and substandard care for the poor black people. My position on that is set in stone and so there doesn't appear to be any possibility of a conversation with you at this time. If your position is amended sometime in the future then it will be up to you to notify me if you wish any further comments from me on health care.

My position is set in stone. Healthcare is not and cannot be a right. People who believe so don't really understand rights and wish for a nanny state. There is no point entering into discussions with said people

 

[Lightbringer]

No, that's incorrect. It was originally going to be the foot in the door for universal health care for all the American people, but the Republicans represented the needs and the greed of big insurance corporations that have gotten filthy rich off the backs of the people.

In any case, it's now unstoppable and will always be truly known as Obamacare, even though some will attempt to call it something else.

Would you like to talk about universal health care with a Canadian?

No, you are incorrect. Show us anything that says Obamacare was a stop gap. If you can't then shut up.

 

[montgomery]

My position is set in stone. Healthcare is not and cannot be a right. People who believe so don't really understand rights and wish for a nanny state. There is no point entering into discussions with said people

Thank you! Now we are set for a decent discussion on universal health care in which I will not have to deal with any false premises from you!

If you wish a discussion with me on my terms then start it on the other section of the forum. I may go there and relax my preconditions, depending on how you state yours. Otherwise, I think we're finished here.

 

[Legion]

No one who actually read the bill could ever reach any other conclusion.

Isn't it true that none of the DEMOCRATS who voted for it had read it?

 

[artichoke]

First of all Arminius, we'll just have to skip right to the facts and dispense with all the false notions and mistruths.

That would be a refreshing change of pace.

Not that I don't have an obvious answer for all of them, but just to say that it's a waste of my time.

Translation: I could come up with a really devastating counterpoint, but you'll just have to take my word for it (on a debate site).

But jumping right to the truth: Universal health care throughout the world is far superior to US for profit health care...

That misinformation has already been debunked. But I'll post it again... Proof That Those International Health Care Comparisons Are Bogus

...and it looks after all a country's people.

By raping people out of 60-70% of their income for inferior care.

That's the part that's not debatable.

Wrong again.

Oh, and Canada's, which isn't anywhere near the best of the universal health care systems, can do it for a little more than half the cost of yours, per capita.

Letting people wait and die does make things "cheaper." And our system is pretty far away from a free market system at this point, which not coincidentally, has become more and more dysfunctional and expensive the more government has gotten involved, kind of demonstrating my point.

As to your question on Belinda Stronach, she likely chose to spend a huge amount of money to receive her treatment the next day. You can do the same if you want the very best the world has to offer, by going to Singapore. On your own dime of course! We've already established that about 50,000 Canadians go to other countries for some procedures on our government's dime mostly. While at the same time millions of Americans flea the US system on their own dime because it's the only way they can afford the treatment they require.

Reminds me of the woman I recently saw on one of my wife's horrifying medical shows, whose vagina was prolapsed (literally inside out, hanging), and Austrailia's socialist system put her on a nine-year waiting list. So she went to Singapore and got it done affordably in one month on a free market system. Funny how all the actual evidence shows socialist systems to be drastically inferior.

You're lucky to have a Canadian to talk to Arminius. Let's talk and learn more if you like!

Condescension is for people who haven't been wrong about literally every single assertion they've made.

 

[artichoke]

Isn't it true that none of the DEMOCRATS who voted for it had read it?

I seem to remember seeing that somewhere.

 

[artichoke]

My position is set in stone. Healthcare is not and cannot be a right. People who believe so don't really understand rights and wish for a nanny state. There is no point entering into discussions with said people

Truth. By definition, rights are about being left alone (the right to not have your guns taken, to not have your speech trampled, etc.), and cannot be about being entitled to someone else's labor. Liberals are trying to redefine "right" to mean "anything we like." Kindergarten simple-mindedness and ignorance of basic civics.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Truth. By definition, rights are about being left alone (the right to not have your guns taken, to not have your speech trampled, etc.), and cannot be about being entitled to someone else's labor. Liberals are trying to redefine "right" to mean "anything we like." Kindergarten simple-mindedness and ignorance of basic civics.

Well said

 

[montgomery]

That misinformation has already been debunked. But I'll post it again... Proof That Those International Health Care Comparisons Are Bogus

Your position is a non-starter in my opinion. It's equivalent to saying that the entire world is out of step with the US on health care. I don't care to waste my time on unreasonableness. If you wish to carry on a conversation with me on health care then you're going to have to pull in your horns a bit.

 

[artichoke]

Your position is a non-starter in my opinion. It's equivalent to saying that the entire world is out of step with the US on health care. I don't care to waste my time on unreasonableness. If you wish to carry on a conversation with me on health care then you're going to have to pull in your horns a bit.

Your position is known as an "ad populum" fallacy (this many people agree with me, therefore I must be right). <=== Fallacies (invalid logic) are the very definition of a "non-starter."



Come back when you find a valid counterpoint.