I’ve heard it said many times that the health care bill is unconstitutional. I looked through the Constitution (the document isn’t very long), and I’ve asked the question before but never got an answer:
How is the health care bill unconstitutional?
No one really knows. Its some people natural fall back when all else fails, which is weird, because there is plenty you can say about it without that fall back.
People say that it violates the 10th amendment because the government is taking control of something “owned by the people”, aka private health care.
That is bullshit because
A] You can still have the same private health care. The laws regulating it are different now though.
B] The people don’t own the private health care business. The healthcare business owns the politicians, who in turn own the people.
C] [insert obvious explanation as to how its constitutional here]
While health care is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, it isn’t isn’t prohibited by the Constitution to the States either.
However, just because health care is not explicitly laid out by the Constitution to the federal government, what is laid out is Article I, Section 8:
I consider health care to be part of the “general Welfare of the United States”.
I’m confused, are you arguing for or against this new healthcare bill?
Read his previous post.
He’s for it.
Thanks. I did read it but I wasn’t sure if he meant that since he considers it a responsibility of the US, whether or not it should still be its responsibility.
But OK.
I’m kind of for it. There are many major flaws in the bill, but it’s a step in the right direction. Now, let’s start fixing these flaws while ignoring the calls that it’s “communist”, that it’s “socialist”, or that it’s somehow (though still not sure how) “unconstitutional”.
Let the Repubs be the “Party of No”. They were against the New Deal, Social Security and Medicare. Let them be against this as well. They’ll just start looking like the anti-progress party that they already are.
I think the people who say that are doing so knowing that the majority of people can’t be assed to look through the thing, so they can rack up support of people who are both lazy and easily frightened. Which isn’t exactly hard to do.
General welfare is the stability and health of the country itself, not the individuals within it.
Considering the financial situation in the US, reforming the most expensive health care system in the world could certainly contribute to the stability and health of the country itself. Insofar that “the country” can actually be considered separately from the people, which is questionable.
Oops, I just caught myself speaking in speculative terms about this 
Reforming the most expensive health care system in the world will certainly contribute to the stability and health of the country itself.
My Dad said that they shouldn’t have tried to be bipartisan, because that isn’t really possible in our current political system. Yet Obama wanted to transcend political partisanship even though the Republicans were NOT interested. Then, when the Dems realized that bipartisanship wasn’t working, they wanted a super-majority of 60 people even though their current majority was perfectly fine to get the bill past. :facepalm:
My Dad thinks, and I agree with him, that this is why the Democrats can’t stay in power for long. They are spineless wusses going up against the far more aggressive and politically competent Republicans. 
PS: I’m a Democrat who supported the bill.
[/SIZE]
ROFLMAO! That is kinda the pot calling the kettle black dontcha think?
Like saying republicans are 99% selfish closet-white supremacists (if they’re not already outright bigots) that are terrified of social change and care only about those in their tightly-knit social paradigm of white heterosexual christian conservatives. :3
[COLOR=‘Black’]inb4flamewar[/SIZE]
Define “stability and health” in regards to the “country itself”. What does it look like? What bills should be passed into law that contribute to that? What is the difference between “the country itself” versus “the individuals within it”?
If anyone doubts President Obama’s sincerity about bipartisanship, just compare Obamacare to 2009 GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney’s state health care program when he was the governor of Massachusetts. It’s virtually identical (although improved in some ways.) Obama literally crafted a Republican-lite health care plan in order to appease the minority opposition party. If that’s not bipartisanship, what is?
I know I’m late to the party, but I had to to reply before my palm rubbed the skin off my face.
Yeah, I totally agree. Being made to pay for healthcare, how ridiculous. Having to pay taxes, what the fuck? And what’s this? Law? I choose how to spend my time, so don’t tell me I can’t shit in public!
I know you’re going to bring up your empty point about how you said “to an extent”, but as people have already pointed out, you’ll be paying about the same amount of money as before.
Also, one question: have you ever donated to charity?
:3
Haha, don’t worry, I’m not going back to that argument.
Adoption. That is all.