You are getting healthcare dammit!

NigelTufnel said:
To answer your first question, they don't mandate that you purchase insurance/ They just provide a tax incentive for you to do so and a tax penalty if you don't. Such tax incentives and penalties are constitutional.

To answer your second question, virtually all health insurance companies (if not all) offer insurance in more than one state and are without question engaged in interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

No, health insurance companies are not currently allowed by law to sell across state lines, so there is no interstate commerce. Again, this is a proposal from the right, which the left remains tone deaf to at this time.

Tax incentives and penalties are certainly not ALWAYS constitutional! IF what you are stating were true, it gives me a GREAT idea for the diabolic right... We pass a Pinhead Tax! Rate is 100% of your income and property! The incentive for paying the tax will be free housing, food, medical, clothing, tv in the rec room, internet access, in a 'gated community' with bars on all the windows and doors and armed security 24/7! The penalty for not paying the tax would be mild, you just wouldn't be eligible for the wonderful benefits! ....A trillion dollars can build a LOT of prisons!
 
Dixie said:
No, health insurance companies are not currently allowed by law to sell across state lines, so there is no interstate commerce. Again, this is a proposal from the right, which the left remains tone deaf to at this time.

Tax incentives and penalties are certainly not ALWAYS constitutional! IF what you are stating were true, it gives me a GREAT idea for the diabolic right... We pass a Pinhead Tax! Rate is 100% of your income and property! The incentive for paying the tax will be free housing, food, medical, clothing, tv in the rec room, internet access, in a 'gated community' with bars on all the windows and doors and armed security 24/7! The penalty for not paying the tax would be mild, you just wouldn't be eligible for the wonderful benefits! ....A trillion dollars can build a LOT of prisons!
Click to expand...


A company that sells different products in different states is a company that is engaged in interstate commerce. The argument that health insurance companies are not engaged in interstate commerce is just stupid.

If I said "always" I misspoke. Tax incentives and penalties are almost always constitutional.
 
NigelTufnel said:
A company that sells different products in different states is a company that is engaged in interstate commerce. The argument that health insurance companies are not engaged in interstate commerce is just stupid.

If I said "always" I misspoke. Tax incentives and penalties are almost always constitutional.
Click to expand...

No, YOU are stupid if you don't understand what INTERSTATE COMMERCE is!
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i understand that the warp in your mentality makes you prone to thinking congress can do anything it damn well pleases, but how do you square the 'general welfare' portion as letting congress touch anything it wants to with the framers intent on a limited government?
Click to expand...

It cant do anything it wants... It merely has to be in the General Welfare... What else could that mean?
 
Dixie said:
No, YOU are stupid if you don't understand what INTERSTATE COMMERCE is!
Click to expand...

see Dix, what nigel is doing right now is embracing the judicial doctrine that was established by FDR era supreme court decisions based on the new deal, then continued by the rhenquist court where it concerns products, even if manufactured, sold, and possessed completely within the boundaries of a single state, never crossing those boundaries, although INTRASTATE, still affects interstate commerce.

unfortunately, they see that double edged blade, but don't care enough to demand its change.
 
Jarod said:
It cant do anything it wants... It merely has to be in the General Welfare... What else could that mean?
Click to expand...

a simple statement that the next bill they push is in the general welfare interests and viola, it means they can do anything they want. just apply a tax incentive or penalty to it.
 
Dixie said:
Well this bill is not, because it has nothing to do with the states, it mandates measures and provides benefits for the individual. The Federal government has no such authority under the Constitution, that is reserved to the States and the People.

The General Welfare and Commerce clause, apply to Federal interaction with the States, not the Individual. We are not discussing whether States should have health insurance or health care, because they all have those available. The topic is Individual welfare, not General, and the Federal government has absolutely NO Constitutional authority to intervene, much less an obligation to do so!
Click to expand...

A Majority of Justices on the The United States Supreme Court, as well as an entire line of cases disagree with you.
 
If I said "always" I misspoke. Tax incentives and penalties are almost always constitutional.
Click to expand...

You not only misspoke, you missed the point completely! Unless there is some compelling reason, the federal government is not within its Constitutional rights to enforce any incentive or penalty pertaining to an individual in America. Issues such as this have come up before the Supreme Court in the past, and the Constitutional issue is clear, the Federal Government does not have this exclusive right or authority, and the Constitutionality remains an issue determined by the Court. Believe me, the Constitutionality of requiring (or compelling strongly) that every American buy ANYTHING, will be met with a challenge before the SCOTUS, and the People will prevail as they always have and always will.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
a simple statement that the next bill they push is in the general welfare interests and viola, it means they can do anything they want. just apply a tax incentive or penalty to it.
Click to expand...

Thats our Constitution... if you dont like it work on an amendment. I dont praticularly like the second Amendment, but unless its amended we must only enforce common sense gun control.
 
Jarod said:
It cant do anything it wants... It merely has to be in the General Welfare... What else could that mean?
Click to expand...

It means the General Welfare of the STATES! That was what you are supposed to be providing something to show that is not the case, and you haven't been able to do that! Why are you ignoring me bitch? lol!

General Welfare and Commerce, apply to THE STATES! NOT INDIVIDUALS!
 
Jarod said:
No, but it appears it is an issue and not an open / shut case as presented by Dixie.!
Click to expand...

the only issue I can see is 'does congress have that power or not'? thats pretty open and shut, they either do, or they don't. Now, if they don't, then there are a whole lot of laws that are in violation of the constitution. If they DO have that power, then there's a whole slew of laws that the social conservatives would love a chance to pass.

so, do they or don't they?
 
Jarod said:
Commerce Clause, general health and safety issues.
Click to expand...

Jarod said:
Section 8 of article 1 reads in part:

The Congress shall have the power... to... provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.
Click to expand...

Jarod said:
And this bill is in the general welfare of the states.... in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Federalist 14 (Madison):

In 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, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other subjects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity.
Click to expand...
And Federalist 41 (Madison):

It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are ``their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
Click to expand...
 
Dixie said:
You not only misspoke, you missed the point completely! Unless there is some compelling reason, the federal government is not within its Constitutional rights to enforce any incentive or penalty pertaining to an individual in America. Issues such as this have come up before the Supreme Court in the past, and the Constitutional issue is clear, the Federal Government does not have this exclusive right or authority, and the Constitutionality remains an issue determined by the Court. Believe me, the Constitutionality of requiring (or compelling strongly) that every American buy ANYTHING, will be met with a challenge before the SCOTUS, and the People will prevail as they always have and always will.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you could point to a case or two wherein the SCOTUS held that Congress did not appropriately use its power to tax because I am not aware of anything like that,
 
Jarod said:
A Majority of Justices on the The United States Supreme Court, as well as an entire line of cases disagree with you.
Click to expand...

As I said, they can have a COMPELLING REASON to intervene in individual affairs, but this is RARE! Short of having some clear and compelling reason, the federal government is NOT entitled to! It is not within their normal constraints of power to regulate individual affairs of the citizenry. This power IS reserved for the States, and the Federal government DOES have some authority over state affairs, and those are enumerated as well.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Perhaps you could point to a case or two wherein the SCOTUS held that Congress did not appropriately use its power to tax because I am not aware of anything like that,
Click to expand...

The 16th Amendment only gives the Federal government the right to tax income. No other individual tax is Constitutional. Incentives or penalties in those taxes, have historically been changed and altered by Court decisions, there is no clear definition of what is and isn't constitutional in that regard, it comes down to a case by case basis and finding of the Court. Generally speaking, there has to be some compelling reason for the court to find in favor of the Feds over The People. It just doesn't happen often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top