• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health care law held constitutional in latest appeals court ruling

the people ARE the govt....if the people choose it, and they have so far, then the govt must supply it...

Kinda like how the South CHOSE to not be a part of the Union? How did that work out for them?

We have a constitution, bud. There precisely to protect us form the tyranny of the majority. We are NOT a democracy. If the majority of americans CHOOSE to pass a law to enslave wealthy people, guess what? They can't. Because every in this country share the same rights as everyone else, NO MATTER WHAT ONE GROUP OR ANOTHER WANTS.
 
A high deductible family policy is not that bad.....our son has one for under $400 per month, $1500 per person deductible, and it pays 100% after that. Annual wellness checks and related labwork is free.

agree that Cobra is a ripoff..

yes, typically only large companies offer health insurance at a decent price, but if you go to many of them already insured, they will usually pay you what they would have paid to cover you. Military retirees get that deal often...
 
The only thing we need now, if this bill passes, is for government to find some reason to take over, or get involved in the operation of health insurance companies.

Then we'll have a industry owned, and enforced, by the government.

Hmmmm.....and what would that make it, again?
 
The suits were brought by more than 2 dozen states.....over 24 states that feel this law is unconstitutional, and are going to have it FORCED on them anyway, regardless of what those state's representatives, and their constituents say or want.

The number of states doesn't really tell you much. California alone has more people in it than the smallest 25 states combined.
 
I'm not entirely sure how the SCOTUS will rule on the case. If I had to bet, I'd bet that they find that it is not unconstitutional. Legally the issue isn't exactly the mandate- that is actually clearly constitutional according to the standards the SCOTUS has been following for the last 70 or 80 years. What could be unconstitutional is actually the penalty for not buying insurance. The constitution doesn't forbid penalizing inaction, but historically it is something we've shied away from. Some argue that over time it has become like an implied constitutional prohibition. There is something to that. It's not a crazy argument. But, practically speaking, the SCOTUS is usually extremely reluctant to overturn a major program authorized by Congress. IMO they're unlikely to do it just on the basis of some implied, unstated, general principle type reason. I think it would need to actually violate something written in the constitution for them to do that.
 
I'm not entirely sure how the SCOTUS will rule on the case. If I had to bet, I'd bet that they find that it is not unconstitutional. Legally the issue isn't exactly the mandate- that is actually clearly constitutional according to the standards the SCOTUS has been following for the last 70 or 80 years. What could be unconstitutional is actually the penalty for not buying insurance. The constitution doesn't forbid penalizing inaction, but historically it is something we've shied away from. Some argue that over time it has become like an implied constitutional prohibition. There is something to that. It's not a crazy argument. But, practically speaking, the SCOTUS is usually extremely reluctant to overturn a major program authorized by Congress. IMO they're unlikely to do it just on the basis of some implied, unstated, general principle type reason. I think it would need to actually violate something written in the constitution for them to do that.
If SCOTUS rules BOCare, with it's mandate, is Constitutional, they should promptly rule the Constitution no longer matters and the Country is ruled under the Commerce Clause and any damn thing Congress wants to pass ...... period.
 
If SCOTUS rules BOCare, with it's mandate, is Constitutional, they should promptly rule the Constitution no longer matters and the Country is ruled under the Commerce Clause and any damn thing Congress wants to pass ...... period.

They pretty much already have dude. Like 70 years ago. More or less, anything relating to the economy is fair game for Congress to regulate.
 
If SCOTUS rules BOCare, with it's mandate, is Constitutional, they should promptly rule the Constitution no longer matters and the Country is ruled under the Commerce Clause and any damn thing Congress wants to pass ...... period.

Good luck looking for the judiciary of the federal government to reign in the legislature of the federal government. Federal judges are, after all, FEDERAL judges. Why would they limit the power of their own organization.

At some point, the several states are going to have to step in to defend their citizens from a federal government spiraling out of control. Otherwise, the constitution will be dismembered clause by clause.
 
The number of states doesn't really tell you much. California alone has more people in it than the smallest 25 states combined.

Doesn't matter. What matters is that we avoid tyranny, be by the majority, or by the minority.
 
Doesn't matter. What matters is that we avoid tyranny, be by the majority, or by the minority.

Tyranny... You think that having to buy health insurance, which mind you, if that would be difficult at all for you financially, is free, is "tyranny"? But let me guess, you think the unlimited executive authority to detain whoever it wants in secret prisons around the world without reporting who or how many people they have, with no requirements for due process, and torturing those people, that doesn't bother you. Right?
 
Tyranny... You think that having to buy health insurance, which mind you, if that would be difficult at all for you financially, is free, is "tyranny"? But let me guess, you think the unlimited executive authority to detain whoever it wants in secret prisons around the world without reporting who or how many people they have, with no requirements for due process, and torturing those people, that doesn't bother you. Right?

Nope. Tyranny is tyranny. Be it in the form of forcing me to purchase something I may not want, or in the form of detaining me against my will, and against the rules set forth by the law of the land....
 
so, what books have you been reading that makes you so fearful?

What do you mean by books? None were mentioned...I was simply responding to the idea that since some states have lower populations, they should have to adhere to the whims of states with higher populations. AKA, the Tyranny of the majority.
 
Nope. Tyranny is tyranny. Be it in the form of forcing me to purchase something I may not want, or in the form of detaining me against my will, and against the rules set forth by the law of the land....

So the only options you recognize are tyranny or anarchy? If any obligation or restraint is placed on you, that is tyranny?
 
So the only options you recognize are tyranny or anarchy? If any obligation or restraint is placed on you, that is tyranny?

No. We live in a republic...which SHOULD mean, we get a CHOICE, broken down by state, region, district, etc, on how our tax dollars are spent, and on which programs we are forced to support.
 
No. We live in a republic...which SHOULD mean, we get a CHOICE, broken down by state, region, district, etc, on how our tax dollars are spent, and on which programs we are forced to support.

But at the federal level, you see the only options as anarchy or tyranny, right? You don't believe the federal government should be able to exert any authority or expect anything of you at all?

Well, that is what we had prior to the constitution. Under the articles of confederation the federal government was more or less without any power at all. It was a total disaster. That's why they drafted the constitution.
 
Last edited:
But at the federal level, you see the only options as anarchy or tyranny, right? You don't believe the federal government should be able to exert any authority or expect anything of you at all?

Well, that is what we had prior to the constitution. Under the articles of confederation the federal government was more or less without any power at all. It was a total disaster. That's why they drafted the constitution.

At the federal level, I view the government as being only able to enact such things as the constitution will allow. Sadly, after the civil war, the power granted o the federal government have done nothing but grow, and become highly self serving. I am not an anarchist. I believe in fundamental rights, and in the basic suppliers of those rights. Infrastructure, etc. What I DON'T believe in, is the MIC, or the 175K wages that the average ellected official makes, or the idea that we need military bases in 78% of the worlds countries and cultures.
 
Nope. Tyranny is tyranny. Be it in the form of forcing me to purchase something I may not want, or in the form of detaining me against my will, and against the rules set forth by the law of the land....

Well, if you come down under to good old ORstaylia you will find a pretty socialist type of government that most people seem to like and which has distinctly failed to tyrannise us
 
What do you mean by books? None were mentioned...I was simply responding to the idea that since some states have lower populations, they should have to adhere to the whims of states with higher populations. AKA, the Tyranny of the majority.

Tyranny of the majority = DEMOCRACY. Love it or leave it.
 
Tyranny of the majority = DEMOCRACY. Love it or leave it.

Your characterization would be right for an unrestrained democracy.

In these united states, however, the majority is restrained by the constitution. The majority may only exercise authority over certain specific subjects, and is forbidden from ruling in areas to which it has not been granted authority. For example, the majority may not establish an official religion.

In our constitutional republic, I don’t really think one can seriously claim that the majority rules in all instances and that the minority must simply suck it up and love it or leave it.
 
Well, if you come down under to good old ORstaylia you will find a pretty socialist type of government that most people seem to like and which has distinctly failed to tyrannise us

Aye, they probably do. However, we are not talking about Australia, we are talking about the US. Australia only has a population of 22,328,800 (source: Google Public Data Explorer) vs the US which has a population of 307,006,550 (same source). What works for such a small population is a lot different from what works for larger populations. Also, exactly what shape would Australia be in if it lost all of the technologies and industries created by the US? Or more to the point of this thread, take a good look at just the medical technologies, those created or first introduced in the US vs Australia. Or even the availability of Technologies to the people. One technology as an example is MRI. The US has 22 MRI units available for every million of the population, Australia has less than 4 MRI units per million of population.(source: MRI Units vs. Health Care Spending by Country - Supporting Evidence).

What all these people who are promoting "socialized" Health Care in America seem to fail to understand is that should the US change it's Health Care System, almost all advancements is medicine will stop. The US, under it's current system, either creates or pays for the development/deployment of almost all medical advancements. Almost all new drugs are initially introduced in the US. Without the US paying the costs that it does for these drugs, companies would never see a profit and would therefore either disappear or would slow down or stop development.

This mandate to buy insurance was put into the bill at the request of the insurance companies. It is necessary, without it, other requirements of this bill would collapse that industry very quickly. It is not even certain that with the mandatory insurance provision that the Health Care Insurance companies can survive. This bill was written and promoted by people who want "socialized" health care. The "public option" which BO wanted didn't make it through. That option would of allowed the government to seize control of the industry if it failed. Interesting that so many provisions of this bill seem to work towards making the system fail.

I for one, definitely would like to see this whole reform bill die and go away. It is bad in so many ways that it would take months of typing to point them all out.
 
Last edited:
the people ARE the govt....if the people choose it, and they have so far, then the govt must supply it...

Oh ok. So if the people choose to make red heads sex slaves then the government must supply it?
 
Oh ok. So if the people choose to make red heads sex slaves then the government must supply it?

I guess some people just never get that the majority can sometimes be wrong.

Majority view--

The solar system and the universe revolves around the earth. Proven wrong.

The Earth is flat. Again proven wrong.

BO would take office and America would immediately or almost immediately be better off. 3 years and over $4 Trillion later and the economy is pretty much in the same shape as the day he took office.

So much for the "majority" always being right, eh?
 
Your characterization would be right for an unrestrained democracy.

In these united states, however, the majority is restrained by the constitution. The majority may only exercise authority over certain specific subjects, and is forbidden from ruling in areas to which it has not been granted authority. For example, the majority may not establish an official religion.

In our constitutional republic, I don’t really think one can seriously claim that the majority rules in all instances and that the minority must simply suck it up and love it or leave it.

Sure, of course that's correct. But the system is designed for majority rule in the areas where government is empowered to act. Some conservatives (including all Republicans in the Senate) seem to have a problem with that ... unless they are in the majority.
 
Sure, of course that's correct. But the system is designed for majority rule in the areas where government is empowered to act.

Agreed.

Some conservatives (including all Republicans in the Senate) seem to have a problem with that ... unless they are in the majority.

Who has a problem with majority rule in the areas where the federal government is empowered to act? I don't know of any such people.
 
Back
Top Bottom