-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional
- Thread starter Jedi Knight
- Start date
So, is Medicare unconstitutional? I had no choice when I turned 65.
All federal 'welfare' programs are unconstitutional. I hope this case begins an avalanche of litigation to turn back the Marxism of the last 60 to 70 years.
FR7 Baptist
Active Member
Medicare and the individual mandate are separate constitutional issues. Medicare is based on the Taxing and Spending Clause, which gives the Congress a plenary power to tax and spend to provide for the common defense and general welfare. The United States is arguing that the Commerce Clause gives the Congress the power to institute an individual mandate, while the States in the lawsuit are arguing that it does not. I think the United States' position is dubious in this case and the individual mandate raises serious constitutional issues. If I were the judge in this case, I'm not sure how I would rule. At this point, I lean towards saying the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
Texas does not mandate the purchase of vehicle insurance.
Small differences. State vs. federal, for one. Use of roads being a privilege, not a right (healthcare being touted as a right). Etc.
All that is required in SC is that you have liability, not collision.
This protects the guy you might run into, not you - if you want to protect "you", you then buy collision INS.
If you don't want to buy any, don't drive; then ins is NOT required.
Humongous difference in the shudda been aborted OBAMACARE and vehicle ins.: not even in the same ball park!!!:BangHead:
Liability it does. Even so, most auto policies have an Uninsured/Underinsured Driver coverage, which you have to refuse if you don't want to pay for. But the real point, to me, is that the insurance companies have the government in their back pockets, forcing vehicle owners to turn their money over-- which is the same principle as mandated health coverage.
And mandated health coverage protects doctors, therapists, and institutions, to whom you may be liable; in that way, the same as the guy you hit with your car. In either case, you're "proctecing" the insurance companies.
States have their own constitutions. The Constitution of the United States is an enumeration of powers to the federal government, and it does not give the federal government the authority to do half the things it has usurped its authority to do—healthcare being the most egregious offense to date.
So, doctors are your slaves?
No; if you pay them to do a job, they are your flunkies.
Not the same at all.
One does not have to drive. Three out of my four grandparents did not drive or own an automobile. My parents took them to the grocery store once a week for large purchases, and they rode bicycles to run smaller errands. In fact, many people in large cities do not own automobiles or even have a driver's license.
Driving an automobile is a highly-regulated activity involving tight government control over the type of vehicles allowed on the public roads, requiring annual safety inspections in most states, and requiring a certain proficiency and history of abiding with the law in order to be legal to drive. Furthermore, the operator of an automobile has to be of a certain minimum age, free of certain health issues (or at least have them under control), have vision correctable to a high level, and be able to physically manipulate the controls of the vehicle they want to drive. Not only that, the driver of an automobile must abide by all traffic laws, remain free of intoxicating substances when operating a motor vehicle, and be responsible for damages incurred while driving. That's where having liability insurance or a cash deposit of a certain amount in a bank (an alternative to insurance in many states) comes in.
By contrast, the healthcare law requires that every person who is living (or their legal guardian) purchase insurance from a private provider to pay for their personal healthcare needs.
That's an enormous difference.
As for just living, the state (and feds) demand a birth certificate on file, as you're a future tax-payer and a student in school (public if not private), and to attend public school you must be vaccinated [another state requirement to do a state requirement], and you're subject to registration for the draft if you're male at least 18. You might can get around some of this government control if you live all your life in a cave or hidden shack in the wilderness somewhere, but it's still not legal. The government demands a lot of things of you to be legally alive.
Currently every person who is living is to be documented by birth certificate, attend school if certain minor ages, be vaccinated, and registered for the draft if male over 18.
It ain't that great, bud.
Slaves are provided room and board.
Not applicable <-- You are not required to purchase a birth certificate from a private entity.
Not applicable <-- You don't pay taxes a private entity.
Not applicable <-- You are not required to pay tuition to a private school. The government provides free, public schools.
Not applicable <-- You are not required to receive vaccinations from a private provider. There is always a local health agency to provide vaccinations for those who can't afford them and/or provide them at a highly reduced rate.
Not applicable <-- You are not required to submit yourself for service to a private employer or army.
But you've completely missed the fundamental essential point...
What makes the healthcare bill illegal is not the compulsory nature of it, but the fact that it requires individuals to do business with a private firm, not the government.