Sorry about this coming from FOX, but it's a valid point. Reid was so busy selling the people's souls for this that he may have a bill that runs afoul of the US Constitution. Also, for the lefties here, try to read the article with an open mind as it is pretty well written. Some very interesting points are brought up. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/22/health-care-face-string-legal-challenges/ http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/22/decide-health-care-consitutional/
Oh c'mom now, the article is clearly written from the righty point of view, BUT, the items they mention as constitutional challanges are interesting- and probably right. I was hoping (silly me) for some decent debate.
It is an interesting situation. I personally feel that it should be unconstitutional for the government to require that I buy a product, with absolutely no way out. The argument of equating it to auto insurance is beyond stupid. I'm actually surprised that Obama would go that route, as he isn't a stupid man.
Which is actually a criminal offense. And yes, the auto insurance example is stupid, but I already had one long conversation about that with an Obama cheerleader on this board. I don't wish to have another one.
You don't have to drive, though it might be inconvenient if you choose not to. You do have to breathe, though. I get the sense that a constitutional challenge would boil down to the fine making it not technically required that you buy from an insurance company. But it seems like the govt. may be requiring you to in a defacto manner.
The healthcare plan is mandated and therefore it is treated, by law, as a tax. Therefore, failure to pay (yearly) is punishable by a fine (probably $5-10,000) and imprisonment. It's unlikely anyone will actually go to jail, but with this administration and the pure meanness in the current Congress, I wouldn't rule out the socialists sending people to jail.
I posted a link to this article in the health care thread. It's written by a law professor who was blessed to serve on the faculty along with our Savior and Messiah.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to maxiep again. Nice article. I hope people take it seriously.
Plus, in the case of auto insurance, that is a state by state decision. I believe in New Hampshire, a person is not required to carry auto insurance even if they own a vehicle.
that is correct, unless required by your lender. no seatbelts either (over 18) or motorcycle helmets or state sales tax or state income tax
Of course not, but neither is the Patriot Act, or requiring driver's licenses to drive, or UA's to work for that matter. This country is built on un-Constitutionality.
When they come for your 1st amendment right to free speech, let me know. If you figure out some way to do so.
Well the great thing about this country is FOX News doesn't decide what is or isn't constitutional, and neither do any of you. The only people that matter are the 9 on the supreme court. If they won't overturn this legislation then it is constitutional.
Auto insurance is also required to protect anyone you may injure in a crash, rather than yourself. Don't we get to make decisions about our own well-being, or are we too stupid and require the assistance of our bureaucratic overlords to even draw breath?
