Posted on 11/12/2009 4:59:09 AM PST by markomalley
When asked where specifically the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance, Sen. Jack Reed (D.-R.I.) said that he “would have to check the specific sections” but said that it was like making people “sign up for the draft.”
“Specifically where in the Constitution does Congress get its authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked Reed.
“Let me see,” said Reed. “I would have to check the specific sections, so I’ll have to get back to you on the specific section. But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don’t think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]. It gives Congress a right to raise an army, but it doesn’t say you can take people and draft them. But since that was something necessary for the functioning of the government over the past several years, the practice on the books, it’s been recognized, the authority to do that.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
It’s a crying damn shame.
I’ve heard over and over that they have no Constitutional powers to impose this on us, yet I don’t see any Republicans or any other group fighting the legalities.
For this cretin to compare mandatory health insurance to the draft just proves his idiocy, and worse, his belief that we are all idiots.
“and worse, his belief that we are all idiots.”
Face it......40% of us ARE!
I’m in.
Yeah, all of the leftist liberals at least.
Sad, very sad. May as well turn it into toilet paper.
Exactly, but take the time limit off of it. The campaign to remove the entrenched forces of tyranny in Washington needs to be sustained until we have forced a complete surrender and resignation of all of the traitors and radicals now infesting our government.
In my opinion, The People need to force an unprecedented reboot of our constitutional government. I don't want our government overthrown. I want it restored, and so do millions upon millions of like-minded American patriots.
It will take a degree of force of equal magnitude to that which now threatens the survival of our republic, to defeat this. The People have far more force than what is required to accomplish this. It simply needs to be applied.
The problem with fighting the legalities is that it ISN’T A LAW YET, and you have to have an “injured party” to have standing to bring this to the courts.
Agreed...”Let me see...” Reading past that made me think I was reading something a 4th grader would have written.
I am in complete agreement,and I didn’t feel that way ten years ago-but it is definitely warranted.I love my country and would do whatever it takes to keep it free,and,like you,I know there are millions more who are willing to fight as well.
Cheez whiz, I'm living in some bizarro world.
It's a tax, not purchase of a product or service, why so many of us have been tearing our hair out at the taxation of Social Security benefit dollars, tax on already taxed money is as un-Constitutional as you can get.
Not exactly:
Article I.
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
However, the founders clearly articulated that even the general welfare clause should never be construed as to expand the powers of Congress beyond the narrow limitations that the Constitution placed on it.
“How did Congress manage to mandate participation in Social Security and Medicare?
It’s a tax, not purchase of a product or service”
Exactly. Congress has the power to levy taxes and may compel their payment, including fines, penalties or even jail for those refusing to pay. So no one is free to opt out of the payment part of these programs. But no one is required to participate once they become eligible either. Having already paid for your Social Security and Medicare benefits during your working years, the government graciously gives you the option to forego any and all benefits from either program.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that SS is constitutional and for that reason, I don’t think the constitutionality of Medicare was ever challenged (since it’s the identical PAYGO structure of financing that relies heavily on a payroll tax paid by today’s workers to finance benefits for today’s retirees).
But in that regard, an individual mandate is virgin territory. While one in a theoretical sense can imagine one’s own personal payroll taxes being “banked” for future SS/Medicare benefits to be drawed upon during retirement, in reality your taxes pay for someone else’s benefits. With the individual mandate, you are being forced to pay for your own health insurance even if you believe insurance is a wasteful/inefficient way to purchase medical care. So I don’t think the constitutionality of an individual mandate can be grounded in the same SC logic that led to their upholding the constitutionality of SS.
I'm thinking along your lines as well. Yes, reality is that today's workers pay for today's retirees, who paid for yesterday's retirees, etal, that was the pyramid, but *banked* as you put it. If I am mandated to purchase a government health insurance plan and never use it, never fall ill, never seek a physician's service, then I am most certainly paying for someone else entirely.
Unless Congress will own up and call this a tax, not insurance coverage, which is not under the purview of the U.S. Constitution, I don't see as how it can withstand challenge. Health care is not a right, it is a need, as much as water and food, lower on the priority chain, as it is imperative to survival that the body has water, food before a doctor's care. Insurance is not necessary to obtain that doctor's care, however, it is not a need at all. It is intellectually dishonest and an arrogant power trip that all these politicians are on.
But that clause is providing the authority to collect taxes to meet the goals; it still isn’t authority or power to do anything they want that promotes “general welfare”.
Maybe it’s not enough of a distinction to matter.
Oh you’re preaching to the choir there. I was just pointing out that the general welfare clause does exist in the section of the constitution that addresses the powers of congress.
“If I am mandated to purchase a government health insurance plan and never use it, never fall ill, never seek a physician’s service, then I am most certainly paying for someone else entirely.”
Well, this is the other extremely deceptive thing about a mandate. Given the restrictions on premiums based on age (i.e., they can vary by a factor of only 2:1 across age groups even though in reality there’s about a 5:1 or 6:1 ratio when you compare 60-65 yr olds vs. what companies would charge for 20-25 year olds), the mandate essentially is a tax on young people to pay for older people. So even if they use some benefits, the premiums they pay will regularly exceed their expected benefits by quite a lot. This is why actuaries predict that premiums for the young may more than double compared to the premiums they are charged today.
So the individual mandate (and employer mandate, for that matter) ARE taxes (and were scored by CBO as such back in 1994. So in agreeing to a mandate, Obama is flagrantly violating his pledge of no new taxes except on the top 5% of earners. But I think that pledge has long been forgotten (probably because by now anyone paying attention realizes Obama’s pledges are worthless).
After the way Putin publicly humiliated him, I am beginning to think his aluminum company actually belongs to Russia and that Deripaska is merely Putin's front man.
Have you read about all the banks to whom Deripaska reportedly owes money for loans he took?
Deripaska is also a friend of Nat Rothschild who, in turn, is a friend of Lord Peter Mandelson. In the annals of corruption, Mandelson deserves a chapter all his own.
Also "maverick" John McCain's 70th birthday bash was reportedly held on Deripaska's mega-yacht.
Don't get me wrong, I am no Clinton/Obama supporter, but neither am I a supporter of RINO's and other self-styled "mavericks" (another name for RINO) who have been wreaking havok on the Republican Party. We need to hold them accountable for their questionable activities as well. For example...
(WMR) -- John McCain's campaign is trying to make political hay out of the conviction of Chicago tycoon Tony Rezko, a one-time fundraiser for presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. However, the McCain campaign wants to bury the story of McCain's 70th birthday bash held on board the yacht of a Russian aluminum tycoon in the Adriatic Sea. The party was held on August 29, 2006, McCain's birthday and followed a congressional junket by McCain and five other GOP senators to the Republic of Georgia.
The host for McCain's yacht party off the coast of the Republic of Montenegro was, according to WMR sources with close links to the Republican Party, Oleg Deripaska, one of Russia's most powerful tycoons who made his billions in cornering Russia's aluminum market in the 1990s.
The 40-year old Deripaska is also politically-connected, having married the daughter of Russia's late President Boris Yeltsin. Unlike most other Russian tycoons, who now live in exile abroad and are protected by Israeli passports, Deripaska maintains close relations to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and another Russian tycoon, Roman Abramovich, who was also invested in Russia's aluminum industry. In 2000, Deripaska merged his firm, Basic Element, with Abramovich's firm, RusAl. Both tycoons maintain expensive homes in London.
Deripaska has attracted the attention of U.S. law enforcement and he has been the subject of several civil law suits filed against him because of his business practices. However, no federal criminal charges have been brought against Deripaska. That is because Yeltsin's son-in-law counts, in addition to McCain, former GOP Senator and 1996 GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole among his most ardent supporters. In 2005, Deripaska paid Dole $500,000 in lobbying fees and was granted a visa to enter the United States. However, in 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. government refused to grant Deripaska another visa because the FBI discovered he made "inaccurate statements" to the bureau.
In the past, the Canadian firm Magna International, in which Deripaska is a $1.5 billion investor, attempted to buy Daimler Chrysler. The deal ultimately fell through.
McCain and Deripaska first met at a dinner party held concurrently with the Davos World Economic Forum in January 2006 in Switzerland. The party was hosted by Canadian gold mining billionaire Peter Munk, owner of Barrick Gold, which has counted former President George H. W. Bush, former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, former Senator Howard Baker, major Democratic Party lawyer/lobbyist Vernon Jordan, and former German Central Bank President Karl Otto Pohl among the members of its International Advisory Board. The party was arranged by McCain's 2000 campaign manager Rick Davis of the Washington lobbying group Davis Manafort. Attending the meeting in Davos were McCain, Davis, Deripaska, and Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and John Sununu (R-NH), as well as the host, Munk.
On August 29, 2006, McCain attended a dinner party in Montenegro that was followed by a champagne reception on a yacht that was hosted by Deripaska. Also reportedly in attendance was Davis, whose lobbying firm was representing the government of Montenegro; Munk; and Nathan Rothschild who, on March 20 of this year held a controversial fundraiser for McCain at Spencer House in London. The fundraiser raised questions about McCain receiving illegal "in kind" contributions from a foreign national. ....read entire article....
http://pda.warandpeace.ru/en/reports/view/24258/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.