Do you believe the Constitution has been violated?

[Slartibartfast]

The U.S. isn't a third world country. There are not people dying on the streets. Having health insurance doesn't guarantee survival for people that are ill.

 

There are people dying in the streets every day.

 

 

But if they show up to the ER they are treated, the hospital doesn't pay that bill, we do.

 

We would have health care reform no matter what. If a Republican had been voted in we would still be having a health care discussion.

[lionfamily1999]

I just read that 13 states filed suit after Obama signed the bill. I know most see this as a symbolic gesture only, but what about the states that are talking about amending their state constitutions? Florida is one that has said they will be adding it to the November ballot. Would it actually do anything? Just curious. Thanks!

VA already put it in our constitution :p They're filing suit.

 

I just have to wonder what happens if so many states refuse to play?

[TXMary2]

I am by no means an expert on the Constitution, but I have been trying to educate myself. When you read what the Founding Fathers believed about the proper role of government and you read the Constitution, it is a fairly easy document to understand.

When you listen to all the various "interpretations" that have been made of the Constitution over the years and the so-called "experts" of it, it becomes fuzzy. Meanings have become distorted in order to seem to be in favor of more federal power.

 

That being said, here is my take on it.

 

What is a right? William Blackstone wrote:

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." (Commentaries on the Laws of England)

Here are some of our rights:

The right of self-government

The right to bear arms for self-defense

The right to own, develop, and dispose of property

The right to make personal choices

The right of free conscience

The right to choose a profession

The right to choose a mate

The right to beget one's kind

The right to assemble

The right to petition

The right to free speech

The right to a free press

The right to enjoy the fruits of one's labors

The right to improve one's position through barter and sale

The right to contrive and invent

The right to privacy

The right to provide personal security

The right to of free association

and so on.

 

The right to affordable healthcare is not a natural right. Healthcare is a service; a good; a product. (So is education).

 

What is the purpose of Government? The purpose of Government is the protection of our unalienable rights, as stated in the Declaration. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

 

To protect our rights, taxes are needed. Read Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution (it's online). "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes.. to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" Some of these is to maintain a military, establish post offices and post roads, etc.

 

The purpose of Government is not to grant rights. Rights are not granted, they are inherent. But when Government starts "granting rights", such as healthcare, our actual inherent and natural rights are encroached upon.

 

Our monetary property, through taxes, are taken from us, not for the purpose of providing for the common defense and welfare, but for the granting of a good or service to others. To provide a good or service would be fine if the tax was uniform (Article 1, section 8). But when you tax the haves and give to the have-nots, it becomes legalized plunder, not charity.

 

If someone were to steal our property, we would turn to the law for protection. When the law IS the one who steals, who do we then turn to? The government, whose purpose is to protect our rights, is now the one who is taking our rights.

Read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (it's online).

 

This says nothing of the power the Government just assumed by passing this healthcare bill, which I believe is the main reason it was passed.

 

All right... bash away. :glare:

 

AMEN!

[TXMary2]

 

Ok, I live in a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY (and I don't know why you capitalize it all the time) and I have lived in Washington DC. I have actually walked past dead bodies (yes plural) of homeless people that died on the street of our nation's capitol. I have yet to have that experience in this THIRD WORLD COUNTRY. I don't think that is fear mongering. No more so than claiming that health care reform is akin to the US delving into socialism or that we have destroyed the US Constitution by taking this step.

 

Of course, if you don't believe that poverty is real and present in the US I certainly won't be able to convince you.

 

It was for emphasis. Clearly you passing a dead body on a street in America is an exception to the rule. Most of us don't pass dead bodies on the street. But you knew that.

[Slartibartfast]

VA already put it in our constitution :p They're filing suit.

 

I just have to wonder what happens if so many states refuse to play?

 

I think most people know what happens when a State law collides with a Federal law.

 

We will have to see what happens with the lawsuits, it will be interesting.

[TXMary2]

There are people dying in the streets every day.

 

 

But if they show up to the ER they are treated, the hospital doesn't pay that bill, we do.

 

We would have health care reform no matter what. If a Republican had been voted in we would still be having a health care discussion.

 

They are not dying because of a lack of health CARE accessibility! They are not dying because they don't have health insurance. People that do die on the streets here die because they are homeless, which is a whole other issue. There are not millions of Americans dying because of insurance or lack thereof or because of quality health care facilities not being available.

[mommyrooch]

He could have had access.

 

But would he have accessed it?

 

 

a

 

How could he have had access? Do you know that for sure? :bigear:

 

Sure, he could have walked into some emergency room and been "stabilized". How would that have helped him if he had an undiagnosed heart condition and needed daily medication to treat it? What about regular physician monitering of this life threatening condition?

 

How would he have gotten that care if he were unemployed, disabled, (due to the heart condition :glare:) homeless, (so no address to put on a job application) too old to work, and he had no family or friends in his life to help? Which was the case in this movie. At least the homeless, unemployed, too old to work, and no family or friends part. ;)

 

Perhaps having access to medical care would have allowed his heart condition to be discovered before it was too late. Perhaps he could have gotten his much needed medication.

 

My point is that in that movie there were too many unknowns and saying a general statement like "sometimes people just die" really isn't a valid argument against affordable, obtainable health care for all.

[Slartibartfast]

They are not dying because of a lack of health CARE accessibility! They are not dying because they don't have health insurance. People that do die on the streets here die because they are homeless, which is a whole other issue. There are not millions of Americans dying because of insurance or lack thereof or because of quality health care facilities not being available.

 

But people *are* dying due to lack of insurance and affordable care. Does it matter where they die?

 

How many people are homeless BECAUSE they couldn't afford their medical bills?

 

Politicians don't just wake up and say "Hey! Let's hack everyone off today!"

 

There is a serious crisis in this country. Medical bills are one of the main reasons people go bankrupt. It isn't a matter of "IF" we have healthcare reform it is only a matter of "what kind"

[wapiti]

How could he have had access? Do you know that for sure? :bigear:

 

Sure, he could have walked into some emergency room and been "stabilized". How would that have helped him if he had an undiagnosed heart condition and needed daily medication to treat it? What about regular physician monitering of this life threatening condition?

 

How would he have gotten that care if he were unemployed, disabled, (due to the heart condition :glare:) homeless, (so no address to put on a job application) too old to work, and he had no family or friends in his life to help? Which was the case in this movie. At least the homeless, unemployed, too old to work, and no family or friends part. ;)

 

Perhaps having access to medical care would have allowed his heart condition to be discovered before it was too late. Perhaps he could have gotten his much needed medication.

 

My point is that in that movie there were too many unknowns and saying a general statement like "sometimes people just die" really isn't a valid argument against affordable, obtainable health care for all.

I haven't seen the movie in question, but wouldn't a person with no assets or income qualify for Medicaid?

 

The more I think about it, the more the issue ought to be fixing Medicaid, so that it can cover more people (not that I'd necessarily be in agreement, but isn't the whole point of Medicaid to provide insurance to "poor" people?). Except that Medicaid is already a huge financial problem for the states.... I'm just thinking out loud here....

Edited March 23, 2010 by wapiti

[mommyrooch]

They are not dying because of a lack of health CARE accessibility! They are not dying because they don't have health insurance. People that do die on the streets here die because they are homeless, which is a whole other issue. There are not millions of Americans dying because of insurance or lack thereof or because of quality health care facilities not being available.

 

Do you have any statistics to support this? I would love to see the numbers on this. :bigear:

 

Do you have numbers proving that lack of heath care accessibility is not causing homeless people to die? Do you have numbers proving that it is their homelessness alone causing these deaths?

 

Are you really saying that the fact that these people don't have a roof over their heads in the ONLY reason they are dying? :confused: Do you really believe that lack of healthcare (which is an unfortunate side effect of being homeless) doesn't play a very big part in homeless deaths? :001_huh:

[TXMary2]

But people *are* dying due to lack of insurance and affordable care. Does it matter where they die?

 

How many people are homeless BECAUSE they couldn't afford their medical bills?

 

Politicians don't just wake up and say "Hey! Let's hack everyone off today!"

 

There is a serious crisis in this country. Medical bills are one of the main reasons people go bankrupt. It isn't a matter of "IF" we have healthcare reform it is only a matter of "what kind"

 

I just disagree. There are not millions of people dying due to lack of insurance! It is such a blatant lie! People can get treatment. If someone CHOOSES not to be treated because they don't want to pay for the cost of the medical treatment that is their perogative. CARE is available everywhere across the U.S. and not everyone can be saved or cured from what ails them.

 

As for medical bills I know for a fact and from personal experience that many, many doctors and medical facilities will work with patients on reasonable, interest free payment plans. Also, many hospitals have charity departments and care gets paid for by that. In fact that woman (Natoma??) that Obama keeps mentioning is getting her care paid for by the charity department of the hospital she is being treated at!!!! There are solutions available, but it takes a little effort to find them. The fear mongering over american "dying from lack of insurance" needs to stop.

[mommyrooch]

I haven't seen the movie in question, but wouldn't a person with no assets or income qualify for Medicaid?

 

The more I think about it, the more the issue ought to be fixing Medicaid, so that it can cover more people (not that I'd necessarily be in agreement, but isn't the whole point of Medicaid to provide insurance to "poor" people?). Except that Medicaid is already a huge financial problem for the states.... I'm just thinking out loud here....

 

Perhaps, in this instance he could have gotten medicaid but we don't "KNOW" that for sure. Like I said, there were too many unknowns in this movie to use it as an argument against the current healthcare bill.

[Slartibartfast]

I just disagree. There are not millions of people dying due to lack of insurance! It is such a blatant lie! People can get treatment. If someone CHOOSES not to be treated because they don't want to pay for the cost of the medical treatment that is their perogative. CARE is available everywhere across the U.S. and not everyone can be saved or cured from what ails them.

 

As for medical bills I know for a fact and from personal experience that many, many doctors and medical facilities will work with patients on reasonable, interest free payment plans. Also, many hospitals have charity departments and care gets paid for by that. In fact that woman (Natoma??) that Obama keeps mentioning is getting her care paid for by the charity department of the hospital she is being treated at!!!! There are solutions available, but it takes a little effort to find them. The fear mongering over american "dying from lack of insurance" needs to stop.

 

How EXACTLY is anything I said a lie?

 

How EXACTLY is anything I said "fear mongering"

 

I didn't say "millions" you did.

 

I don't actually know what Natoma person you are referring to, I am talking about readily available facts and statistics regarding availability and affordability of healthcare.

 

It is a FACT that one of the top reasons people go bankrupt is medical bills.

 

I am not referring to a Dr for a cold, many HOSPITALS are not so understanding.

[Chris in PA]

I am reading an amazing book right now called The 5000 Year Leap. This book disects the Constitution using the actual writings of the Founding Fathers. I have decided to educate myself on the Constitution and this is a start for me. I have several other books on my list. I would recommend reading that book and then thinking about this question. After reading it I feel our Constitution has been violated on this and many other issues.

[Narrow Gate Academy]

It is interesting...try as I might, I can't come up with a better example of providing for the "general welfare" of the citizens of the US then making sure that health care is available and affordable to as many people as possible. Is there something else that fits the definition of "general welfare" better than healthcare?

 

Congress has already made sure that healthcare is available to everyone. The law states that the emergency room cannot turn someone away simply because they cannot pay for the services. Affordability could be greatly improved by breaking up the current insurance monopolies around the country to allow for increased competition, through tort reform, and other measures. None of which would violate the consitution by mandating individual must purchase an insurance policy that has been "approved" by the federal government.

[mommyrooch]

I just disagree. There are not millions of people dying due to lack of insurance! It is such a blatant lie! People can get treatment. If someone CHOOSES not to be treated because they don't want to pay for the cost of the medical treatment that is their perogative. CARE is available everywhere across the U.S.

 

I so COMPLETELY disagree with this. People can get care if they are extremly rich (don't need insurance because they are rich enough to pay for whatever bills the acrue) or extremely poor (medicare/medicaid).

 

Medical care is NOT available everywhere across the U.S! If it were we wouldn't be in this stinking crisis. Whether you support this bill or not surely people don't truly believe that everyone can get all of the medical care they need if they just wanted it bad enough because "there are ways". :confused::confused::confused:

 

This line of thinking is just completely untrue. If you don't think it is then back it up. Where are the stats that support this? Show me the studies that have been done proving that medical care (not ememgency room visits but long term care like cancer treatments, diabetes treatments, heart conditions, etc.) is available to ALL and can be found "everywhere". :bigear:

 

I can show you statistic after statistic "proving" that this just isn't true.

[Laurie4b]

I think that the bill made law in areas that are reserved for the states, so yes, I think it is unconstitutional. However, some members of the SCOTUS are now using international law, trends, etc. rather than just the constitution to inform their opinions, so I would be surprised if it is actually ruled unconstitutional.

[Slartibartfast]

I think that the bill made law in areas that are reserved for the states, so yes, I think it is unconstitutional. However, some members of the SCOTUS are now using international law, trends, etc. rather than just the constitution to inform their opinions, so I would be surprised if it is actually ruled unconstitutional.

 

I do think corporations being people is MAJOR FAIL!

 

Sorry just fuming.

[6packofun]

Remember Obama's speech in Ohio recently? He used a woman with cancer from Medina, OH as an example of insurance rates rising terribly after someone has a cancer diagnosis. She was paying out a TON and the insurance company was paying a small percentage of what she was! Sounds really crummy and it is. BUT, we learn from the Cleveland Clinic where she's being treated that they have a benevolence/donation fund from which she is eligible to receive aid. Why didn't she or anyone else know that?? (Not blaming her at all, it just makes no sense!) There are MANY places to get assistance and a the very least, hospitals will often times work with people to offer income-based payment plans.

 

So, while the insurance industry does need some work, to say that people are dying because of lack of healthcare options seems to be an inaccurate-as well as dramatic--representation of some other issues that need to be addressed. What doesn't add up is why people are not being connected to these other resources. Does this bill address THAT? I can't imagine it would cost us several million dollars to get this country's actual healthcare assistance and resources TO the people. It seems like it will put an end to any non-traditional (insurance or welfare "insurance") means to get medical services.

 

This country is extremely generous and I think that the government is trying to tell us HOW to be generous and they need to butt the heck out. Look at how those Christian med-sharing programs work. Yes, the pre-existing condition thing applies, but the main structure of those programs, grouping together, is an excellent idea. Imagine if there were Diabetics med-sharing plans or Cancer survivor med-sharing plans or Sickle-Cell or FILL IN THE BLANK communities who pooled their resources so that they could bear one another's burdens and not necessarily raise the rates of people who are (yes, blessedly) healthier? True, these would probably be supplementary. I know it leaves a bad taste in people's mouths to think of this like taxing the rich (the fortunate who have good health or those who work hard for good health) for the hold up the poor, but that's essentially what it is.

 

I think the more entitlement programs we start, the more fraud and waste are bound to follow. I'd rather that someone took advantage of charities that can monitor their giving rather than the ENTIRE COUNTRY whose government apparently can't.

[Melissa in FL]

Can anyone quote that part of the Constitution which they believe has been violated?

 

OR Can anyone quote that part of the Constitution which they believe has provided for the federal government to act in this manner?

 

I'll take a stab at this.

 

I believe my liberty has been violated. Liberty is defined by wikipedia as: identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will.

 

This bill makes me and any other American enter a contract with a private company whether we want to or not. I MUST have insurance or get fined or possibly go to jail if I do not enter into a contract to provide for insurance for my family and I. This breaks my liberty, it makes all Americans act whether it is their will or not.

 

I also believe it breaks the fourth amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. With this bill my doctor will be required to put my medical history into a database that will be able to be accessed from any where in the country, this is suppose to be for my own good. But I believe the fourth amendment should protect the private information between my doctor and me. In this case it seizes my medical history. Right now I have a choice whether I share the information or not, soon I will not have that choice.

 

I also believe it breaks the tenth amendment: 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. Right now health care is NOT part of interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is what Pelosi is using to defend this bill. That was my problem with being allowed to buy insurance across state lines, I felt that it was an opening for the Federal Government to take over healthcare under the Interstate commerce act. They have decided to by-pass that and just do it. I think that is unconstitutional and obviously a lot of states agree with me (that is what the states are suing the government over).

 

I hope that answers your question.

Melissa

[KnitWit]

I'll take a stab at this.

 

I believe my liberty has been violated. Liberty is defined by wikipedia as: identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will.

 

This bill makes me and any other American enter a contract with a private company whether we want to or not. I MUST have insurance or get fined or possibly go to jail if I do not enter into a contract to provide for insurance for my family and I. This breaks my liberty, it makes all Americans act whether it is their will or not.

 

I also believe it breaks the fourth amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. With this bill my doctor will be required to put my medical history into a database that will be able to be accessed from any where in the country, this is suppose to be for my own good. But I believe the fourth amendment should protect the private information between my doctor and me. In this case it seizes my medical history. Right now I have a choice whether I share the information or not, soon I will not have that choice.

 

I also believe it breaks the tenth amendment: 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. Right now health care is NOT part of interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is what Pelosi is using to defend this bill. That was my problem with being allowed to buy insurance across state lines, I felt that it was an opening for the Federal Government to take over healthcare under the Interstate commerce act. They have decided to by-pass that and just do it. I think that is unconstitutional and obviously a lot of states agree with me (that is what the states are suing the government over).

 

I hope that answers your question.

Melissa

 

Thank you! It is much easier to understand our views when they are less emotional....even though....this *is* an emotional situation for most, I think.

[Joker]

I'll take a stab at this.

 

I believe my liberty has been violated. Liberty is defined by wikipedia as: identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will.

 

This bill makes me and any other American enter a contract with a private company whether we want to or not. I MUST have insurance or get fined or possibly go to jail if I do not enter into a contract to provide for insurance for my family and I. This breaks my liberty, it makes all Americans act whether it is their will or not.

 

I also believe it breaks the fourth amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. With this bill my doctor will be required to put my medical history into a database that will be able to be accessed from any where in the country, this is suppose to be for my own good. But I believe the fourth amendment should protect the private information between my doctor and me. In this case it seizes my medical history. Right now I have a choice whether I share the information or not, soon I will not have that choice.

 

I also believe it breaks the tenth amendment: 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. Right now health care is NOT part of interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is what Pelosi is using to defend this bill. That was my problem with being allowed to buy insurance across state lines, I felt that it was an opening for the Federal Government to take over healthcare under the Interstate commerce act. They have decided to by-pass that and just do it. I think that is unconstitutional and obviously a lot of states agree with me (that is what the states are suing the government over).

 

I hope that answers your question.

Melissa

 

:iagree:I read a Wash. Post article recently that basically said the same things. It actually used the words unprecedented when referring to forcing individuals into a contract with a private company.

[Melissa in FL]

I guess my priorities are different than yours. I personally believe that systems that help people are vastly more important than "infrastructure, the military, courts, etc." Don't get me wrong, these things are vitally important too but IMHO they are not as important as helping our fellow man.

 

Helping our fellow man is very important in my opinion. But not if it infringes on my own liberty! Above I put the definition of liberty, the important part is: the right to act according to his or her own will. If it is my WILL to help my fellow man than I will. But according to the constitution It's MY choice. The government can not force Americans to do things against our will. Or at least it's not suppose to.

Melissa

[spradlin02]

Nope

[LauraQ]

No.

 

Sure don't buy a home or a car but it isn't ethical to just leave people to die who cannot pay.

 

I work full-time as an ER RN and we do not leave people to die who cannot pay. Look up EMTALA and you will see that those who cannot pay cannot be turned away for real emergencies. There are many people getting free care at ERs, even though they have insurance and don't want to wait 2 weeks for a doc appt., but let me tell you -- NO ONE at my hospital dies because of lack of insurance or ability to pay. In fact, we even treat hundreds of non-emergencies every day even though, legally, we are not required to render services for non-emergencies. THIS is the rule and norm, not the exeption in ERs across the country because too many docs are afraid of accidentally violating EMTALA. We don't even know what their funding is when we triage them, prioritize them on the waiting list, give them their EMTALA-mandated screening exam, and treat them. Their priority in being seen is based on how seriously ill they are, how great the danger is to their lives, not in any way, shape, or form on how much money they have.

 

I know a lot of doctors, and MOST of them are willing to see patients even when they cannot afford their co-pay if they really need to be seen, or to give them huge discounts, free samples, and free exams and tests when their limited gov't insurance runs out before the end of the year, and to see indigents for absolutely nothing, on their own time, gratis.

 

And I know what it is like to have crappy or no insurance--I have only had good insurance starting in the last 3 years. Before that we either had none, or what we had was only for major medical, so didn't help us at all in covering routine doc and dentist and optometry visits. I know what it's like when a $4 prescription is a financial hit. I've btdt MOST of my life. But I also remember a certain doctor who was my PCP from age 11 until I left home even though we had no $ to pay him and no insurance. He saw me for free all those years whenever I needed a doctor, and NEVER asked my poor mother for a dime in compensation. Doctors like that really are plentiful, not rare. It is a myth that people are literally "being left to die" in this country for lack of insurance or means to pay for healthcare. Perhaps at one time, but to whatever *very* small extent that might still happen today, it will not be LESS often after passage of this health care bill.

[spradlin02]

Helping our fellow man is very important in my opinion. But not if it infringes on my own liberty! Above I put the definition of liberty, the important part is: the right to act according to his or her own will. If it is my WILL to help my fellow man than I will. But according to the constitution It's MY choice. The government can not force Americans to do things against our will. Or at least it's not suppose to.

Melissa

 

C'mon. Sure it can, it does it everyday. The function of a government is to make rules for the benefit of the entire society, and quite often it infringes on someone's will. Libertarianism is anarchy.

 

the right to act according to his or her own will

 

We put people in jail every minute of every day who are acting according to their own will.

[Mrs Mungo]

I work full-time as an ER RN and we do not leave people to die who cannot pay. Look up EMTALA and you will see that those who cannot pay cannot be turned away for real emergencies.

 

I have a friend whose grown cousin has cystic fibrosis. He has a job and makes too much money for government insurance. Sure, he is stabilized by the ER in an emergency. Once he's stable he is back to no medical care and it's only a matter of time before he's back in the ER because he isn't receiving adequate medical care and the lack of it *will* eventually kill him. I think *these* are the sorts of situations Sis and others are talking about.

[Melissa in FL]

On the issue of constitutionality - if that is the only objection - does that mean that if your STATE instituted mandatory health insurance it would be ok. Because then it is not a federal action (perhaps limited by the Constitution) but then it would fall under those powers "not reserved to the federal government."

 

Would that be ok? If not, why not?

 

 

Yes, I do think it is a State issue. It depends on the individual state constitution as to whether or not it would be legal. If I lived in a State that was trying to mandate this I would work with other groups to try to amend the State constitution (if needed) to prevent it. Also, I can move or choose not to move to a certain State. I would NEVER move to MA because of their health care situation. This is the same as with homeschooling. I would never move to NY (which was a choice when we moved to FL) because I strongly disagree with their homeschooling laws. I would fight tooth and nail if FL tried to impose the homeschooling restrictions that NY does, and we would move to a homeschooling friendly state if we lost. Same goes with health insurance.

Melissa

[Gretchen in NJ]

I'll take a stab at this.

 

I believe my liberty has been violated. Liberty is defined by wikipedia as: identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will.

 

This bill makes me and any other American enter a contract with a private company whether we want to or not. I MUST have insurance or get fined or possibly go to jail if I do not enter into a contract to provide for insurance for my family and I. This breaks my liberty, it makes all Americans act whether it is their will or not.

 

I also believe it breaks the fourth amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. With this bill my doctor will be required to put my medical history into a database that will be able to be accessed from any where in the country, this is suppose to be for my own good. But I believe the fourth amendment should protect the private information between my doctor and me. In this case it seizes my medical history. Right now I have a choice whether I share the information or not, soon I will not have that choice.

 

I also believe it breaks the tenth amendment: 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. Right now health care is NOT part of interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is what Pelosi is using to defend this bill. That was my problem with being allowed to buy insurance across state lines, I felt that it was an opening for the Federal Government to take over healthcare under the Interstate commerce act. They have decided to by-pass that and just do it. I think that is unconstitutional and obviously a lot of states agree with me (that is what the states are suing the government over).

 

I hope that answers your question.

Melissa

 

:iagree:Nicely written, Melissa. I too believe that the IV Amendment applies. Iwas looking at it by being forced to buy a product though. Before this bill, you had the right to decline receiving health care. Do we still have that right?

[Slartibartfast]

I have a friend whose grown cousin has cystic fibrosis. He has a job and makes too much money for government insurance. Sure, he is stabilized by the ER in an emergency. Once he's stable he is back to no medical care and it's only a matter of time before he's back in the ER because he isn't receiving adequate medical care and the lack of it *will* eventually kill him. I think *these* are the sorts of situations Sis and others are talking about.

 

That is the sort of situation I mean.

 

ERs are not set up for long term care and are not adequate to treat chronic illnesses. They might be able to walk out, but what about the next day...what about the day after that?

[FairProspects]

No, I do not believe the Constitution was violated.

Edited March 23, 2010 by FairProspects

[astrid]

There are not people dying on the streets. QUOTE]

 

 

Unfortunately, there are. Dying in the streets, under the bridges, in tenaments and inner cities, in rural areas and urban. Ask anyone who works with the poor of America.

 

.....as one who works extensively, four days per week, with the urban poor, teenaged mothers and homeless populations, YES. The world I walk into four days out of five IS a third world country. And YES. People ARE dying for lack of care. And I'm not just talking physical health care. Some of the most urgent health care needs I see are psychological and psychiatric. THAT is the health care that is often so TRAGICALLY lacking. "Jane" is a student of mine.

She cannot work because of her debilitating depression/bipolar disorder. She cannot get mental health treatment because she has no insurance. She doesn't have insurance because she can't work.

She can't work because she's depressed/bipolar.

And she can't go to an ER and get a prescription to magically cure her depression/bipolar disorder in 5-7 days.

 

Health care is needed. This bill doesn't do enough, IMHO.

 

astrid

[mommaduck]

 

.....as one who works extensively, four days per week, with the urban poor, teenaged mothers and homeless populations, YES. The world I walk into four days out of five IS a third world country. And YES. People ARE dying for lack of care. And I'm not just talking physical health care. Some of the most urgent health care needs I see are psychological and psychiatric. THAT is the health care that is often so TRAGICALLY lacking. "Jane" is a student of mine.

She cannot work because of her debilitating depression/bipolar disorder. She cannot get mental health treatment because she has no insurance. She doesn't have insurance because she can't work.

She can't work because she's depressed/bipolar.

And she can't go to an ER and get a prescription to magically cure her depression/bipolar disorder in 5-7 days.

 

Health care is needed. This bill doesn't do enough, IMHO.

 

astrid

Though I disagree with the bill, I agree with precisely what you said otherwise. It's amazing how truly "invisible" these ppl seem to be from the rest of society (my husband also worked with urban homeless).

[astrid]

 

It is flat out, blatant fear mongering to claim that people are "dying in the streets" as if it is some sort of pandemic.

 

Much like "They're going to round up the elderly and KILL THEM!" and "We're all going to be forced to have abortions!" I heard those comments just this morning on the radio during my morning commute.

 

I"m just sayin'.

 

astrid

[Heather in OK]

Absolutely.

[astrid]

Though I disagree with the bill, I agree with precisely what you said otherwise. It's amazing how truly "invisible" these ppl seem to be from the rest of society (my husband also worked with urban homeless).

 

Thanks, Mommaduck. I have yet to hear mental illness discussed in this health care debate, from either side. Unfortunately, it's much more widespread than any of us realize. :crying:

 

astrid

[TXMary2]

 

Much like "They're going to round up the elderly and KILL THEM!" and "We're all going to be forced to have abortions!" I heard those comments just this morning on the radio during my morning commute.

 

I"m just sayin'.

 

astrid

 

 

Well that would certainly qualify as fear mongering too. Now, if you can find an elected official saying that then you will have a point.

[mommyrooch]

Helping our fellow man is very important in my opinion. But not if it infringes on my own liberty! Above I put the definition of liberty, the important part is: the right to act according to his or her own will. If it is my WILL to help my fellow man than I will. But according to the constitution It's MY choice. The government can not force Americans to do things against our will. Or at least it's not suppose to.

Melissa

 

Oh yes they can. They do it everyday when you pay taxes for our military, infrastructures, courts, education, etc. They are "forcing" you to pay into those systems. The only difference is that perhaps for "you" you support those so it is okay and justified. Whether you supported it or not though you would still be "forced against your will" to pay into those services. You do not have a "choice" of whether to pay into those systems.

 

Healthcare is no different. The only difference is that many don't "support" this one so they are in an uproar because they are being "forced" to support it.

 

Surprisingly, many don't support other systems they are forced to pay into. Education comes to mind ;) but whether they support it or not they still have to pay into it.

 

My only point being that the government can and does already "force" many Americans to pay into systems they don't support. To condone one but condemn another is a double standard. American's have had to pay into systems "against their own will" for decades.

 

According to your opinion that this violates your Liberty why are some forced contributions okay but not others? They are both required by "force" so therefore they are not driven by free will.

[Mommyfaithe]

C'mon. Sure it can, it does it everyday. The function of a government is to make rules for the benefit of the entire society, and quite often it infringes on someone's will. Libertarianism is anarchy.[/Quote]

 

:scared: WHAT????

 

It does not benefit ME to pay for YOUR health insurance and it does not benefit ME to be forced to enter a contract with a private or governmental run business without my express desire to do so. It is unconstitutional to force me to do so. But what difference does the constitution make? You know..... that old fashioned nonsense that every American used to have to read in school back in the day when they taught civics and Good Citizenship. That document our fathers and grandfathers and great grandfathers died to defend.

 

What you are talking about is facism...maybe you need to read some of the documents of the 20th century (namely the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf to be exact.) Millions upon millions were murdered for the "Good of Everyone." and laws enacted for the "good of the people." Read about Stalin and Hitler. The government of the United States was not set up fix every problem that comes along, but to defend our freedoms so that our inventiveness, creativity, ingenuity and dogged perserverance could find ways to come through our problems and come out stronger than before.

 

Now, maybe millions upon millions will become bankrupted to help the few who may be bankrupted due being FORCED to purchase something I may not want or need. Maybe next we will all be forced into purchasing cars for our neighbors because they can't afford one and the Government now owns this awesome car company afterall, and it isn't "fair and equal" if you have 2 cars and your neighbor doesn't have one...even though you work 2 jobs and have a side business...and he won't look for a job because there aren't any and then he would have to give up most of his pay for child support anyway and then his kids would lose their state funded health insurance and it goes on and on......

 

Your statement about Libertarians is just uneducated and ludicrous.

 

As for people being put in jail for doing their own will...? :001_huh: HUH???

 

~~Faithe

Edited March 23, 2010 by Mommyfaithe

[mommyrooch]

That is the sort of situation I mean.

 

ERs are not set up for long term care and are not adequate to treat chronic illnesses. They might be able to walk out, but what about the next day...what about the day after that?

 

Me too. The ER did absolutely NOTHING for my son's 3 year chemotherapy treatment! They diagnosed him and kicked us out the door leaving us to our own devices as to how to actually SAVE HIS LIFE!!

[astrid]

 

 

Well that would certainly qualify as fear mongering too. Now, if you can find an elected official saying that then you will have a point.

 

Soo.... you are saying that I don't have a point? Or is it that you just don't agree with my point? Because I do, in fact, have a point. If it was too subtle, let me reiterate:

There is fear mongering on both sides of the debate. Those in favor of the bill are capitalizing on the fears of the public, and those against it are doing the very same thing.

 

Example from an elected official? Ummm....who was that senator (from Oklahoma, maybe? I can't recall his name/state--- heard it too quickly last night) who screamed "BABY KILLER!!!!" on the Senate floor the other day? I'd say that was one example. There are others.

 

astrid

[Gretchen in NJ]

Oh yes they can. They do it everyday when you pay taxes for our military, infrastructures, courts, education, etc. They are "forcing" you to pay into those systems. The only difference is that perhaps for "you" you support those so it is okay and justified. Whether you supported it or not though you would still be "forced against your will" to pay into those services. You do not have a "choice" of whether to pay into those systems.

 

Healthcare is no different. The only difference is that many don't "support" this one so they are in an uproar because they are being "forced" to support it.

 

The first list is part of the Constitution, and health care is not.

[mommyrooch]

 

.....as one who works extensively, four days per week, with the urban poor, teenaged mothers and homeless populations, YES. The world I walk into four days out of five IS a third world country. And YES. People ARE dying for lack of care. And I'm not just talking physical health care. Some of the most urgent health care needs I see are psychological and psychiatric. THAT is the health care that is often so TRAGICALLY lacking. "Jane" is a student of mine.

She cannot work because of her debilitating depression/bipolar disorder. She cannot get mental health treatment because she has no insurance. She doesn't have insurance because she can't work.

She can't work because she's depressed/bipolar.

And she can't go to an ER and get a prescription to magically cure her depression/bipolar disorder in 5-7 days.

 

Health care is needed. This bill doesn't do enough, IMHO.

 

astrid

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

[Melissa in FL]

Really, jail, I must have missed that part. How exactly does that happen? I believe what everyone is upset about is the "get healthcare or pay a fine" proposition.

 

Actually, you are right. I said jail in my posts too. I stand corrected. The Senate bill that was just signed into law did not have jail time in it, only fines. The House bill, that is not law, did have imprisonment up to five years for not obtaining insurance or paying the fines in it. I have not read the reconciliation package yet and do not know if jail time is in that. Sorry, sometimes it's confusing to remember what is in which bill.

Melissa

[wapiti]

Oh yes they can. They do it everyday when you pay taxes for our military, infrastructures, courts, education, etc. They are "forcing" you to pay into those systems. The only difference is that perhaps for "you" you support those so it is okay and justified. Whether you supported it or not though you would still be "forced against your will" to pay into those services. You do not have a "choice" of whether to pay into those systems.

 

Healthcare is no different. The only difference is that many don't "support" this one so they are in an uproar because they are being "forced" to support it.

 

Surprisingly, many don't support other systems they are forced to pay into. Education comes to mind ;) but whether they support it or not they still have to pay into it.

 

My only point being that the government can and does already "force" many Americans to pay into systems they don't support. To condone one but condemn another is a double standard. American's have had to pay into systems "against their own will" for decades.

 

According to your opinion that this violates your Liberty why are some forced contributions okay but not others? They are both required by "force" so therefore they are not driven by free will.

 

I think part of the problem here is that this isn't about being forced to pay into a government system - that's a different question entirely, from a constitutional perspective. It's about being forced by the federal government, as a requirement for living, to enter into a very specific contract with a private entity.

[TXMary2]

Me too. The ER did absolutely NOTHING for my son's 3 year chemotherapy treatment! They diagnosed him and kicked us out the door leaving us to our own devices as to how to actually SAVE HIS LIFE!!

 

Do you mean to say that NO ONE in the ER even gave you the name of an Oncologist to see outside of the ER? That would be highly unusual. Everytime we have ever visited an ER there was always a referral to another Dr. to see for followup care. EVERY TIME.

[Melissa in FL]

For the life of me I also can't think of anything that would pose a better example of "providing for the general welfare" than trying to make sure health care was affordable and obtainable to all.

 

 

There is a huge difference between "affordable and obtainable to all" and forced on all. This bill will make health care forced on us all, not obtainable.

Melissa

[TXMary2]

 

Soo.... you are saying that I don't have a point? Or is it that you just don't agree with my point? Because I do, in fact, have a point. If it was too subtle, let me reiterate:

There is fear mongering on both sides of the debate. Those in favor of the bill are capitalizing on the fears of the public, and those against it are doing the very same thing.

 

Example from an elected official? Ummm....who was that senator (from Oklahoma, maybe? I can't recall his name/state--- heard it too quickly last night) who screamed "BABY KILLER!!!!" on the Senate floor the other day? I'd say that was one example. There are others.

 

astrid

 

Well, abortion IS baby killing and that is an accurate description. Screaming it an individual who may or may not have ever participated in abortion was uncalled for. I watched C-SPAN on Sunday and I watched Democrat after Democrat stand up telling anecdotal sob stories one after the other. That is fear mongering. As for what the Republicans rebutted with- they were mostly FACTS. I don't like politicians much on either side, but I especially don't like the blatant liars that have shoved this bill down the throat of the american public. It is shameful, shameful, shameful.

[astrid]

Do you mean to say that NO ONE in the ER even gave you the name of an Oncologist to see outside of the ER? That would be highly unusual. Everytime we have ever visited an ER there was always a referral to another Dr. to see for followup care. EVERY TIME.

 

They might give you a name. But it doesn't mean that when you call that doctor's office, the dr. will actually see you, or agree to treat you.

Additionally, if you are poor, living in an area with no public transportation (as I and many others do,) unable to speak English or Spanish, and unless the Dr. is in the immediate vicinity, they might as well be on the moon. In those cases, follow-up health care is not available.

 

astrid

[mommyrooch]

The first list is part of the Constitution, and health care is not.

 

Now see, this is a perfect example of individual opinions.

 

To YOU the first list is Constitutional. To ME healthcare is as equally Constitutional. (if not more so! Gasp! :ohmy:) Many Americans do feel that helping to provide healthcare to it's citizens is VERY Constitutional. :001_smile: