Post User Polls

Does the new health-care law violate the Constitution?

Twenty states are squaring off against the Obama administration on Tuesday in a lawsuit seeking to nullify the sweeping new health-care law.

Technically, Tuesday's oral arguments presented to Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida will be limited to the government's argument that the case should be dismissed because neither the states nor the other parties have standing to pursue it. But the lawyers are also bound to clash over the question at the heart of the suit: Does the new health-care law violate the Constitution?

By Jodi Westrick  |  September 14, 2010; 12:04 PM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Wives bringing in bigger paychecks | Next: Would you prefer a four-day workweek?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Since WP is a liberal newspaper, one would expect most readers to be Obama supporters. So, the results of the vote are not surprising. What's surprising is that 25% of your readers come to your paper to oppose you views.

Posted by: rimantas1 | September 14, 2010 12:36 PM

rimantas1 - I am one of those voting "yes". You have to keep your enemies close by and keep a close eye on them.

Posted by: voiceinthedesert1 | September 14, 2010 12:57 PM

RIMANTAS1, Pluhleez! Liberalism does not mean uniformity of opinion; in fact, it's the opposite. How about trying to be constructive in offering an opinion on the question posed? You can't think that hard, uh!

Posted by: Figaro1 | September 14, 2010 12:59 PM

The premise is absurd to begin with. What does it matter how many random people in a self-selected online poll think a law is constitutional or not? The Constitution of the United States is not determined by popularity polls.

For what it's worth, here's how I see it as being Constitutional:

1. Article I, Section 8, says "Congress shall have Power To lay and collext Taxes...[to] provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." The HCR bill creates a tiny new tax obligation that you can meet in one of two ways: have a valid insurance policy in your name, and you're done. Otherwise, pay $87. Guess what? This is why the Supreme Court says Social Security, an insurance policy people are FORCED to buy, is Constitutional.
2. It also gives Congress broad power to regulate commerce "among the several States". Health care in its various manifestations is a huge industry that crosses state and international boundaries. The Federal government thereby has power to regulate.
3. Article VI says that in addition to the Constitution itself and ratified treaties, laws passed by the Federal government "shall be the supreme Law of the Land". Federal law always trumps state law. We fought a Civil War to defend this concept, and the 14th Amendment enshrines it. My rights to my life, liberty and property do not end when I cross from one state to another.

O that the self-proclaimed "strict Constitutionalists" would read the thing.

Posted by: JamesK1 | September 14, 2010 1:09 PM

Voiceinthedesert1: You're not my enemy. You're my fellow American. The divisive crap has got to stop--otherwise we're in REAL trouble as a country.

Posted by: JamesK1 | September 14, 2010 1:11 PM

As I understand the states' objection, it presumes that it is unconstitutional to require those without health care insurance to purchase it, or to pay a tax. How is that different from states that require their vehicle owners to maintain auto insurance or (in some states) to pay an uninsured motorist fee?

Posted by: eed017 | September 14, 2010 1:11 PM

The argument about auto insurance is ridiculous! If you don't drive an auto your not mandated to buy auto insurance.

Posted by: jamespmarion | September 14, 2010 1:18 PM

JamesK1 - if you vote/support to infringe on my right to live and make my own decision about my life, health and insurance -- you are an enemy to my liberty

Posted by: voiceinthedesert1 | September 14, 2010 1:19 PM

"Since WP is a liberal newspaper, one would expect most readers to be Obama supporters. So, the results of the vote are not surprising. What's surprising is that 25% of your readers come to your paper to oppose you views."

Yeah, the moochers who've never paid for the print edition of the Post in their lives are willing to come online for free and offer their paranoid ramblings. Big Whoops.

Posted by: andym108 | September 14, 2010 1:21 PM

How about the fact that uninsured people cost insured people about $1,000 per year in premium costs to pay for health care provided to the uninsured? Why should we (the insured) pay that penalty?

Posted by: ponderer | September 14, 2010 1:23 PM

"The argument about auto insurance is ridiculous! If you don't drive an auto your not mandated to buy auto insurance."

And if you don't live in the US, you aren't mandated to buy health insurance or pay the penalty tax. There you go.

Posted by: hitpoints | September 14, 2010 1:27 PM


Clearly, FINING people for SIMPLY EXISTING is going to be overturned;

thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Out of touch politicians have so overreached on the Constitution's Commerce Clause as to be laughable; if it weren't so stupid.

The new Congress should immediately DEFUND, then REPEAL this turkey!

Posted by: chicago77 | September 14, 2010 1:30 PM

If the the new health care laws are unconstitutional, so are the old ones like Medicare.

I'm all for not requiring people to have healthcare, so long as the hospitals have the right to leave those people on the sidewalk to die if they can't pay.

I'm tired of the hospital overinflating my bills because of the uncovered morbidly obese masses.

Posted by: fakedude1 | September 14, 2010 1:43 PM

Considering that the majority of your readers are Washington D.C. residents and are either on the Government employees or
on welfare. They have gotten so use to having the government supply everything they have forgot how to provide for themselves. Socialist and Liberals always want to provide so much for everyone but they do not realize the cost nor the effect it has on the economy.

Posted by: jmsmaxwell | September 14, 2010 1:45 PM

I wonder how many of the people who feel that the medical insurance bill doesn't violate the US Constitution have actually read the Constitution lately. One would be hard pressed to find any section of that document that gives Congress the power to make such a law.

Posted by: concernedcitizen3 | September 14, 2010 1:47 PM

This paper is targeted as supposedly liberal, so every public comment area of every article seems to be flooded by the most conservative, tea-party commentary imaginable. It's really a wonder you see any liberal remarks in the public commentary at all. Just the opposite of what was inferred above about this being a biased paper.

Posted by: poncedeleroy | September 14, 2010 1:52 PM

Why does the Washington Post perpetuate nonscientific polls that mean nothing? The comments are interesting and provide a good exchange of ideas but the poll is moronic.

Posted by: RHB3 | September 14, 2010 1:53 PM

If guaranteed health care for all and making the insurance companies play fair is in violation of the Constitution, then it's the Constitution that needs to be changed.

Posted by: ceefer66 | September 14, 2010 1:59 PM

The question is complicated. The PPACA implements (a) an unavoidable mandate of economic behavior and (b) a penalty for failing to perform the government-mandated activity: there is both a "chain" and a "whip".

Even the federal authorities admit that the concept is novel: the Obama/Pelosi regime cites Wickard v. Filburn as support, but it's not really on point. Butler v. Perry -- a case in which states were allowed to mandate citizen participation on road-repair crews -- is closer, but still isn't directly on point in that (a) state (not federal) statutes were involved and (b) participation on road-repair crews is part of the venerable "trinoda necessitas" (threefold tax) well known in English common law. Even closer are the conscription cases and the peonage cases: essentially, the PPACA requires each citizen to participate in an "army" and requires, under penalty of law, that each citizen work in a manner which generates profit for another.

If we were discussing the "Affordable Cotton Act" and a selected portion of the population was told to pick cotton without pay while generating profit for a master-farmer or be subject to a fine, the question of constitutionality would probably not even arise. The chain and the whip of the PPACA are not altogether new: the "Affordable Cotton Act" analogy wasn't selected at random and the 13th Amendment still has meaning.

Posted by: rmgregory | September 14, 2010 2:02 PM

No one, especially Democrts, know if this P O S Bill is legal or constitutional because no one, especially Democrats, have read it.

One thing is certain - it will be nullified after November 2010 and 2012.

Posted by: Patriot12 | September 14, 2010 2:04 PM

Refusing to buy health insurance is not a conservative value! It just marks you as a cheapskate freeloader. If you are a true conservative then you should demand that people pay upfront for health insurance like you do any other insurance. No one in their right mind would think that people should be allowed to buy auto insurance after they have an accident!

Posted by: danceblade | September 14, 2010 2:09 PM

It's a ridiculous argument, but, with the right-wing activist ideologues on the Court who are willing to legislate from the bench, I guess anything is possible.

Posted by: ejs2 | September 14, 2010 2:09 PM

Presumably, the only constitutional issue with the health care law is the question of requiring people to carry insurance. It is hard to see why this requirement is different than any kind of tax. I will be at least a little surprised if the Supreme Court wants to take over the task of managing health care payments from Congress. Although, the alternative would be to use a policy like Medicare where you have to pay much more if you don't buy coverage when you are first elgible.

Posted by: dnjake | September 14, 2010 2:11 PM

This poll is funny. How many people voting actually know what the Constitution says, much less what it means?

Posted by: chrisny2 | September 14, 2010 2:12 PM

Voiceinthedesert1: You're not my enemy. You're my fellow American. The divisive crap has got to stop--otherwise we're in REAL trouble as a country.

Posted by: JamesK1 | September 14, 2010 1:11 PM

------------

Very nicely said and very correct. VERY CORRECT.

Posted by: mrdorkbutt | September 14, 2010 2:14 PM

Its clear most commenters here have not read the constitution and dont understand the difference between the Feds enumerated and limited powers and the states powers under their individual constitutions. States have the right to issue drivers licenses and require the purchase of auto insurance, and the Feds dont, for one example.

Posted by: bruce18 | September 14, 2010 2:19 PM

I don't agree or like the healthcare law, but, I will take advantage of it and keep my insurance cancelled, pay the minor fines and get insurance when I might need it.
I paid $5000 in premiums last year for my family, plus co-pays. I spent $400 this year.
I like the idea of a $700 - $3000 fine, it's much cheaper and I can't be refused insurance or treatment.
I win.

Posted by: r_leever | September 14, 2010 2:42 PM

Bruce18, care to comment on the Federal (FEMA) requirement for property owners to purchase Federally-administered flood insurance if their property is in a high-risk flood area?

That's not a state requirement, it's a Federal one.

Posted by: hitpoints | September 14, 2010 2:43 PM

The bill as written is unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the power to penalize people for economic actions not taken, only the states can mandate something like that.

It could be changed to a simple tax and automatic enrollment system like medicare and there would be no problem. In their haste to pass "something anything" the Democrat majority has left us with an enormous mess. Better to repeal the whole thing and start from scratch. We do need to reform our health care system, honestly, thoughtfully, carefully, legally. The bill passed in haste by the Democtrats last year fails on all those counts and should be scrapped.

Posted by: robert17 | September 14, 2010 2:49 PM

The Health Care law will be held up as Constitutional under the same basis as the Social Security Insurance laws are Constitutional. It is reassuring to see that only a quarter of those polled are ignorant enough to believe the Health Care Laws are un-Constitutional.

Posted by: n0n1m0us3 | September 14, 2010 2:57 PM

If Health Care gets overturned, can I then opt out of Social Security? I'd feel a lot better watching my own money than turning it over the to SSA.

Posted by: comish4lif | September 14, 2010 3:04 PM

Considering that the majority of your readers are Washington D.C. residents and are either on the Government employees or
on welfare. They have gotten so use to having the government supply everything they have forgot how to provide for themselves. Socialist and Liberals always want to provide so much for everyone but they do not realize the cost nor the effect it has on the economy.

Posted by: jmsmaxwell
****************************************
What is the current system doing to our competitiveness? At the rate health care costs are increasing, doing nothing is a guaranteed recipe for economic disaster.

Posted by: st50taw | September 14, 2010 3:06 PM


PUNISHING People with FINES;

For SIMPLY EXISTING is NOT going to stand.

Posted by: chicago77 | September 14, 2010 3:18 PM

if you vote/support to infringe on my right to live and make my own decision about my life, health and insurance -- you are an enemy to my liberty
Posted by: voiceinthedesert1

Then everybody in the world must be your enemy because every law ever written is an infringment against your right to do as you please. Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. As far as I can understand the law there is nothing in it that prohibits you from making decisions about your health and insurance than you did before it was passed. If you have insurance and are happy with it then you are free to continue in the same manner in which you have. No one has taken any 'right' away from you. In fact as the law goes into effect you as a satisfied insurnace buyer will probably never see any difference one way or another.

Posted by: dre7861 | September 14, 2010 3:38 PM

If the governement can mandate health insurance for the common good, what can't they mandate?

Posted by: moebius22 | September 14, 2010 3:39 PM

There is a big difference between the car insurance, the medicare, and the social security with the new law about health insurance. You are required to have car insurance if you want to drive a car (many people choose not to drive - thus don't have to buy car insurance). And you have to have a job (earned income) to have to pay medicare and social secruity (which is just like income tax). And many people don't have jobs (whether by choice or not - if you choose not to have a job then you don't have to pay). But, health care insurance's requirment is that you are alive (And if you choose not to pay health insurnace - you then have to kill youself or pay a fine).

Posted by: kuanjungli | September 14, 2010 3:45 PM

Those who oppose the health insurance reforms obviously have not had claims turned down in the midst of a health crisis. It is okay for health insurance companies to put limits on what they will provide, but those limits must be clearly understood by all parties to the contract before the first premium is paid. The contract does NOT change according to the whim of some clerk or committee at the insurance company. There is big money to be earned if you are a health insurance company. Only the government is powerful enough to coerce those companies into behaving like responsible adults. Is such coercion unconstitutional? No. See, for example, the clause about providing for the common welfare. Crooked businessmen should not run riot in our country.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | September 14, 2010 3:54 PM

If the governement can mandate health insurance for the common good, what can't they mandate?
-------------------------------------------
truth is, they can mandate whatever they want with no regard for the constitution. even if we had the will to fight for our ideals (and i feel we do not), we no longer have the means. nor can you vote for freedom, the two-party system we're trapped in prevents that. you can spell tyrant with an R or a D in my opinion

Posted by: shiferbraenz | September 14, 2010 3:56 PM

How about the fact that uninsured people cost insured people about $1,000 per year in premium costs to pay for health care provided to the uninsured? Why should we (the insured) pay that penalty?
Posted by: ponderer | September 14, 2010 1:23 PM
===========

How about however many million of illegal aliens are exempt from the mandate, along with their illegitimate anchor babies?

Surprise, Surprise, you're still going to pay that extra $1,000 ... PLUS ... your mandated insurance premium (or tax)

Are you implying that you take offense to paying the extra $1,000 to offset the uninsured citizens, but more than willing to pick up the tab for the illegals and their anchor babies?

Posted by: asmith1 | September 14, 2010 4:12 PM

I am sure there are a host of Constitutional issues raised by the health care bill.

However, one question arises: Can the federal government require a citizen to buy a product from a private company? Since the government owns GM, could Congress require each citizen to buy a GM car or pay a fine?

Posted by: InTheMiddle | September 14, 2010 4:18 PM

It is interesting how politicians and a lot of citizens consider our Constitution irrelevant. The powers of Congress are clearly LIMITED in Article I, section 8. All of the powers are NATIONAL GOVERNMENT powers such as coining money, regulating commerce with foreign nations, and maintaining the military forces. The federal government has NO POWERS involving the personal living expenses of citizens. The Constitution was framed this way to protect the powers of the people and the states. Of course, Congress routinely ignores the Constitution because special interests put up the money for their agendas. Congress has now imposed control over how the people obtain health care. This is beyond their authority. Relying on the commerce clause shows a basic misunderstanding of federal constitutional powers. Regulation of interstate commerce is a federal power because each state is independent of the others, so who regulates commerce between them? This is a COORDINATING provision of the constitution to avoid problems between the states. Also, regulation of commerce is not the same as engaging in commerce or controlling commerce. The constitution does not authorize the government to engage in or control commerce. Lawful regulation by government is to prevent fraudulent or dangerous practices in commerce. Obamacare goes way beyond that.

Posted by: allamer1 | September 14, 2010 4:19 PM

From the Constitution:
Quote
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Quote ends

I know that this has been the most beat-up, watered-down, stomped-on amendment, but that doesn't change the fact that is still there.
The Federal government is supposedly PROHIBITED from doing anything it is not SPECIFICALLY authorized to do by the text of the Constitution. If you have to "interpret" the text to justify government intervention, then it is, in fact, a supra-Constitutional power and, as such, it should be the responsibility of the States, not the Fed's.

A proper and honest enforcement of the tenth amendment would have far-reaching consequences:
Roe v. Wade would be overturned (its up to the States, not the Federal government)
Federal Drug laws would go bye-bye (justifying these laws using the commerce clause is disingenuous, to say the least!)
No Federal departments of Housing, Education, Environment, Arts, etc. etc.

The founding fathers wanted to establish a weak centralized government, and allow each state's government to have most control. Then the people would be free to choose from among the states where they wanted to live & work.
But today, the Federal government has encroached on even the most private acts- and its not the Conservatives that scare me. The Liberals have decided that they should decide such things as:
Whether I get a safe car, or an efficient one;
How many gallons I can use to flush my toidy;
What kind of light-bulb I can have in my reading lamp;
Whether or not I should even know if my minor daughter is having an abortion;
Whether or not I should buy Health Insurance;
Etc.
Etc.
..
.

Posted by: EddieNJ | September 14, 2010 4:24 PM

"you as a satisfied insurnace buyer will probably never see any difference one way or another. " by: dre7861

So you presume I am a buyer, and a satisfied one that is. The law wants me to be a buyer or pay tax. What if I dont want to be the buyer? oh, the law will tax/penalize me!

Posted by: voiceinthedesert1 | September 14, 2010 4:32 PM

"Then everybody in the world must be your enemy" dre7861

Your right to swing your fist stops an inch away from my face.

Posted by: voiceinthedesert1 | September 14, 2010 4:33 PM

There is nothing in the constitution preventing the enactment of national health care. Health care is vital to the defense of the nation.

Repubs are just upset it was not their big government program. But then they already have the SUPER BIG GOVERNMENT PATRIOT ACT, which eclipses anything Obama has done individually or combined.

Posted by: Maddogg | September 14, 2010 5:53 PM

Posted by: EddieNJ | September 14, 2010 4:24 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You are seriously offtrack and need help. The conservatives are so bad with their Patriotic Act they know the color and size of underwear and how many times they have been washed.

The government now even knows when you make a purchase and what that purchase is. The government knows where you are and what you ar doing at all times.

In fact, you can be picked up anytime without notice and without a warrant and held indefinetly with legal counsel.

This all thanks to the Patriotic Act named after Joseph Stalin.

Posted by: Maddogg | September 14, 2010 6:02 PM

Businesses have the right to sell cars, toasters, laptop computers, cellphones, IPods, food, drink, various services (including insurance) and the government has the power and right to regulate aspects of how they produce and sell those products or services.
I have the private individual right to not purchase any product or service I wish not to purchase and the right to not conduct business with anyone I wish not to conduct business with. I have the basic human right to purchase, or to not purchase, as I see fit, a car, a laptop, health insurance, a DVD, or anything else in this world.
For this reason, the mandatory purchase aspect is incontrovertibly unconstitutional, as it proposes to take one of my basic human rights from me.

Posted by: SCOTSGUARDS | September 14, 2010 6:03 PM

What would you expect, there is Maddogg and Angienut who post endlessly all day under different names, but pretty easy to tell who they are. Actually I voted ten times, this poll is about as accurate as WP on most issues. So much for integrity and WP, NOT>

Posted by: cburbank | September 14, 2010 7:50 PM

I only care that the 19 attorney generals win their lawsuit. And the candidates that promise to repeal this monstrosity do their job when they are elected.

Posted by: cburbank | September 14, 2010 7:53 PM

Next they, the Dems, will be telling you you have to pay for cars you don't buy..
Like GM and Chrysler.
Last I checked when Obama gave an executive order to takeover GM and bypassing Congress..he was in violation of the Constitution.

SS will be repealed... because it is going broke and was a unconstitutional law to boot.
Time to take another look at that scam .
WE need to repeal the Dems and Obama.
Traitors and corrupt.

Posted by: cburbank | September 14, 2010 7:59 PM

Voiceinthedesert1: You're not my enemy. You're my fellow American. The divisive crap has got to stop--otherwise we're in REAL trouble as a country.
Posted by: JamesK1
==================================
Obama,Pelosi and Reid are the enemy. This won't get better until they are removed.

Posted by: cburbank | September 14, 2010 8:01 PM

My first question is, how are the suing parties being harmed? Answer: they aren't. End of lawsuit.

Posted by: fudador | September 14, 2010 8:04 PM

As I understand the states' objection, it presumes that it is unconstitutional to require those without health care insurance to purchase it, or to pay a tax. How is that different from states that require their vehicle owners to maintain auto insurance or (in some states) to pay an uninsured motorist fee?
Posted by: eed017
===================================

Excuse me, if you don't own a car you don't have to pay insurance. get it.

Posted by: cburbank | September 14, 2010 8:05 PM

Let's see, all those people out of work, isn't over 20,000,000, who aren't paying into SS or Medicare, will they be subjected to fines? Didn't think so. Yet those poor souls will have to pay a fine if they don't have health coverage, or the gooberment will pick up the tab?

Posted by: cburbank | September 14, 2010 8:13 PM

My first question is, how are the suing parties being harmed? Answer: they aren't. End of lawsuit.
Posted by: fudador | September 14, 2010 8:04 PM
=============================
A judge has already allowed the suit to go forward.

Posted by: cburbank | September 14, 2010 8:14 PM

It makes little difference whether it is constitutional or not. The supreme court, consisting of a majority of right-wing nuts, will continue to make decisions in violation of the constitution, as they have done so many times in the past several years. So they may well decide in favor of the rest of the Tea-Potty crowd (They do not deserve to be called "tea party."

Posted by: billaldridge | September 14, 2010 8:40 PM

Unconstitutional, unaffordable and un-American.

Posted by: thebump | September 14, 2010 9:09 PM

I had no idea so many people on welfare read the Washington Post. Of course they don't think the healthcare legislation is unconstitutional - because they have no idea what that means. Unfortunately, if I explained it to them, they still wouldn't care, because they think those of us who work for a living should pay for them to sit around their trailer parks and cook meth.

Posted by: georges2 | September 14, 2010 9:14 PM

FAKEDUDE1:
You are absolutely right. Why don't the republicans agree that all hospitals and doctors have the unconditional freedom to refuse service to anyone without either insurance or the funds to prepay their fees before looking at them. It is that simple. I for one, am tired of the freeloaders whose care costs the rest of us plenty. There is no free lunch. We all pay, or some of us pay for the rest of us. Either way, someone will pay. A national health insurance is the best of all of the worst alternatives. Everything else is pure BS.

Posted by: patriot0523 | September 14, 2010 9:26 PM

SCOTSGUARDS:
Very true, you have the right to buy or not to buy insurance. My son is a doctor, and I am sure he has the right not to see you unless you pay your fee up-front. If you don't like that, you have the right to go and see some one else, but not to sue him. I am sure you will have no problem with that. So, we both agree

Posted by: patriot0523 | September 14, 2010 9:45 PM

The premise is absurd to begin with. What does it matter how many random people in a self-selected online poll think a law is constitutional or not? The Constitution of the United States is not determined by popularity polls.
For what it's worth, here's how I see it as being Constitutional:
1. Article I, Section 8, says "Congress shall have Power To lay and collext Taxes...[to] provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." The HCR bill creates a tiny new tax obligation that you can meet in one of two ways: have a valid insurance policy in your name, and you're done. Otherwise, pay $87. Guess what? This is why the Supreme Court says Social Security, an insurance policy people are FORCED to buy, is Constitutional.
2. It also gives Congress broad power to regulate commerce "among the several States". Health care in its various manifestations is a huge industry that crosses state and international boundaries. The Federal government thereby has power to regulate.
3. Article VI says that in addition to the Constitution itself and ratified treaties, laws passed by the Federal government "shall be the supreme Law of the Land". Federal law always trumps state law. We fought a Civil War to defend this concept, and the 14th Amendment enshrines it. My rights to my life, liberty and property do not end when I cross from one state to another.
O that the self-proclaimed "strict Constitutionalists" would read the thing.
Posted by: JamesK1 | September 14, 2010 1:09 PM
****************
****************
However, there is nothing in the Constitution that dictates that a certain commerce MUST happen. Moreover, this Communist Monstrosity forces people to spend money the way the gov't sees fit. That surely violates both Common Law and the 9th amendment.

What really galls me is why on God's green Earth would ANYONE cede powers to dictate what you must do to the gov't??? Don't you value your freedom???

I do. I'm making sure the votes are there to destroy this monstrosity!!!

VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!

Posted by: wapocensorsbite | September 14, 2010 10:44 PM

SCOTSGUARDS:
Very true, you have the right to buy or not to buy insurance. My son is a doctor, and I am sure he has the right not to see you unless you pay your fee up-front. If you don't like that, you have the right to go and see some one else, but not to sue him. I am sure you will have no problem with that. So, we both agree
Posted by: patriot0523 | September 14, 2010 9:45 PM
************
************
You know, prior to the 20th century the human race got along quite nicely, thank you very much, without health insurance. Most of humanity still does get by without health insurance. The beasts of the field, the birds in the air, and the fish in the sea get by and prospoer without health insurance.

Let me put it this way: Health insurance IS NOT A NECESSITY!!! Air, water, and food are the necessities of life, in that order. After that, clothing and shelter are real important. After that, insurance is a nice to have luxury. An extremely utilitarian and efficacious luxury, but still a luxury. It's not in the rank of air, water, and food.

Instead of this heavy handed gov't Communist monstrosity, why don't you libs try something effective like tort reform? How about allowing insuring people across state lines? How about givin tax advantages to health savings accounts? I guess what the real point is you libs want to be in control. You don't want to give people freedom. So typical.

VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!

Posted by: wapocensorsbite | September 14, 2010 10:49 PM

JamesPMarion said

"The argument about auto insurance is ridiculous! If you don't drive an auto your not mandated to buy auto insurance."

You're right. And if you get sick or injured, you're not mandated to go to a doctor. I don't believe you should pay a penalty if you opt not to get health insurance.

But for those who opt not to get health insurance, don't you even THINK that I'm going to pay for your catastrophic injury just because you took a gamble and it turned out badly. God forbid if you're ever hit by a bus (not such a stretch, considering Metro's reputation) and you end up in the hospital with multiple broken bones, you'd better have enough $$$ saved up or enough investments to cash out to pay for it.

Posted by: mssnatchquatch | September 14, 2010 11:12 PM

1. Is it a tax? NO!
2. If I don't want health insurance, why am I mandated to buy it?
3. I say it is Un-Constitutional and we'll throw these bums out of office.

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | September 14, 2010 11:18 PM

It's not unconstitutional because no one is required to buy health insurance under the new system. If you don't want it, pay the extra cash and don't buy it. It's like buying an energy-star certified refrigerator. No one is forcing you to buy one, but if you don't you'll pay more to the government (because you'll lose the tax credit).

Posted by: webg | September 14, 2010 11:29 PM

Studies have shown that most individual bankruptcies are the result of job loss or catastrophic health problems -- ones that are not covered by health insurance.

Of course, all those who have commented here don't believe that such a thing could happen to them, and if I were a generous soul, I would wish that it were so.

However, since most of them seem only to have read one small portion of the Constitution (and therefore come to a didactic and legally dubious conclusion), I have to assume that they haven't read the small print in their health insurance policies. If they have any.

Now, who do you suppose they expect to pay their bills if they do get sick?

Posted by: thmas | September 14, 2010 11:29 PM

Funny, getting schooled in liberty by conservatives who think it's okay to bully a whole religion out of a chunk of Manhattan.

Posted by: webg | September 14, 2010 11:36 PM

its very unchristian to be anti-health care.

Posted by: souljahzonfiya | September 14, 2010 11:36 PM

"For what it's worth, here's how I see it as being Constitutional:
1. Article I, Section 8, says "Congress shall have Power To lay and collext Taxes...[to] provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." The HCR bill creates a tiny new tax obligation that you can meet in one of two ways: have a valid insurance policy in your name, and you're done. Otherwise, pay $87. Guess what? This is why the Supreme Court says Social Security, an insurance policy people are FORCED to buy, is Constitutional.

Posted by: JamesK1
===========================================

OK, agree, if it is truly a service to provide general welfare to us citizens, then the cost should be the same for all citizens. It should not be delivered by employers at varied costs. It should be just what they claim it is, a tax, and the government provides the service.

Otherwise, their approach is forcing people to pay a "tax" for something they are not being provided through their employers or choose to purchase privately. So this would be similar to the governmet "taxing" us if we do not own or purchase a particular type of hand gun. After all, the federal government can mandate that as part of their general defense and welfare plan every citizen MUST own or purchase a hand gun. If they choose to deny this they will be taxed!

See it just doesn't hold water! The bill is unconstitutional in it current form.

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | September 14, 2010 11:41 PM

voiceinthedesert1, Reasonable people can disagree in legislation withour being "enemies". Dems have no sincere interest in undermining America, going soicialist, etc. He want to honor American values by providing for the lest among us, just as Washington did in setting up a a widows and orphans fund, etc.

Posted by: cadam72 | September 15, 2010 12:29 AM

We're required to pay into Medicare and Social Security, which some will never use. What's the difference here?

Posted by: MadamDeb | September 17, 2010 7:09 PM

Those of you who think you're not already paying for others' health care are severely blinded. Today, all emergency rooms are required to see anyone who shows up there. If you don't have insurance and cannot pay the hospital (and ambulance) bill, the hospital just has to accept it. But they don't accept it without some remuneration from somewhere. This is generally via your homeowners' and income taxes, hospital tax breaks, Medicaid, and other public funds allocated to entitlements used by those with little or no resources.

You pay either way. (Actually, if you're over 30 and didn't realize that you always pay, well, then...)

Posted by: MadamDeb | September 17, 2010 7:23 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company