Hey, Wait a Minute, Health Care Reform Isn't in the Constitution!
We've been so wrapped up in the details of health care reform — public options, optional public options, robust public options, public options with a trigger, public options with optional bucket seats, etc. — that we have completely forgotten the most important question of all time: Is any of this even in the Constitution? Anywhere?
The Washington Times is on the case…
Does the U.S. Constitution allow the government to require uninsured Americans to buy medical insurance or impose a tax penalty if they refuse? Congress has never before required citizens to purchase any good or service, but that is what both House and Senate health bills would mandate.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed the complaint Thursday when she was asked by a reporter if the Democrats' health reform proposal was constitutional.
"Are you serious? Are you serious?" Mrs. Pelosi replied.
No, Nancy Pelosi, are you serious about the Constitution? Is anyone around here serious about the Constitution?
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner said the argument could not be ignored. "I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not a constitutional lawyer, but I think it's wrong to mandate that the American people have to do anything," he told reporters at his own press briefing last week.
Fuck yes, John Boehner! That's what I'm talking about!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta grab the license I don't have and drive my uninsured car the wrong way down this one-way street, because my 18-year-old brother needs a ride home from refusing to register with the Selective Service System.
RSS
Taxes, in one sentence for those who don't know, are money that the screaming idiotheads Americans send to Washington take from every working American's salary, savings account, and/or property value to pay for trips around the world to see which countries they can sucker people who don't have jobs into blowing up for slimeball corporations who want slaves in those countries to do those jobs for free, and especially to pay for their own healthcare coverage while taking kickbacks from insurance companies to say that healthcare coverage is too expensive for everybody else that pay for all this crap.
You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you.
Actually it is unconstitutional. In order to impose a tax on a person there has to be a Constitutional basis for that tax. Taxes can be charged on transactions, on ownership of property, etc., but to require everyone to get health care is a tax on simply being alive. This is unconstitutional. When it comes to driving, you are not forced to drive, driving is a privilege, so they can restrict who gets licenses and what they have to pay etc. However, simply being present and alive in this country is not a privilege and it is unconstitutional to require everyone to pay for simply being a person. Law makers know this. That is why the current health care bill requires everyone to get insurance but there is no penalty or punishment if they do not. Because there is no punishment or penalty for not getting health care, this prevents anyone from ever challenging the Constitutionality of the provision because you can only challenge the Constitutionality of a law if you are in someway harmed by it (including financial harm).
Dying in this country is a privilege that requires one to pay for simply being a dead person
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States
Everyone likes to point to the constitution when they're worried they're not going to get their way. People fail to recognize that the constitution was adopted 222 years ago…. before cars, before insurance, before 2 world wars. It's a different world now. I'm not suggesting the constitution should be abandoned, but our country can not be governed word for word by a document that old.
Sallen, the Constitution is a living document. Remember, prohibition was not a part of our founding father's vision, but became the law of the land more than a century after the ratification: and rescinded when it was found to be a drastic failure, increasing the power-lords of organized crime. The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, came about before the Constitution was even ratified. The "word for word" is consistantly put to the test, through legislation and the courts.
@Swiggy:
Thomas Jefferson believed that any one version of the Constitution really shouldn't last any longer than 19 years, after which a new version that more appealed to the people during that time would be crafted.
So, really, he didn't think the Constitution was a "living document," but rather a document that should be better refined to suit generation after generation. I know he wasn't the only framer, but he was one of the most important ones so I'd say his opinion mattered…
Just because it's not in the Constitution now doesn't mean it can't be law. You just need to AMEND it. The crooks in Washington don't bother cause they know it's easier to just break the law and sneak their big government legislation right under Americans' noses. They'd never be able to give themselves the power they require- it too blatantly conflicts with what's in the Constitution already.
Who cares about the Constitution, anyway? The GOP only look at it when they can use it against Democratic legislation.
Using the analogy of requiring a license to drive to explain the validity of mandatory health care insurance is blatant nonsense. The framers of the Constitution wisely made the distinction between direct and indirect taxes. Indirect taxes/fee are allowed only on chosen activities/events that can be avoided. Direct taxes that can not be avoided must be equally apportioned, i.e., everyone must pay the exact same amount. If we the people want to make health care a right and wish to pay for it through taxation, then the only constitutional way is through a direct tax, not mandatory health insurance fees that will vary per individual. This discussion doesn't even scratch the surface of much wider issues such as the wisdom of allowing government to exercise such pervasive control over an individual's personal health care choices. What about those who prefer alternative health care and who choose to maintain their health through nutrition and exercise? I certainly don't want any government office mandating my health care options. I have no interest in blindly providing financial support through taxation to medical/insurance institutions that often don't have my best interests in mind.
You can't have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without adequate health care. And if the government makes it available, that is not the same as forcing people to use it.