I don’t like it and you can say all the good and wonderful misconceptions about this bill you want to, in the end however you cannot change the simple fact, this singular fact;
Quote:
|
You are required to have health insurance. If you don't, you will pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5 percent of household income.
|
It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to do this to the American people; the Federal government cannot mandate all Americans to purchase whatever they decide we should buy.
The 10th Amendment of the Constitution was created to prevent this from happening, to prevent the Federal Government from doing this to its people, from requiring the people of the U.S. to participate in the purchase of health insurance, or anything, as a demand or be penalized.
Say all you want deny all you want, cover and cherry coat all you want, but it is wrong, it will always be wrong, and if you deny this fact, you deny the fundamentals of the America way.
Quote:
St. Louis Globe-Democrat
Health insurance mandate would violate constitutional liberties
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
To the editor:
Among the elements of the health bill currently being considered by Congress is a requirement that every adult would have to obtain health insurance coverage or face large fines. Legal scholars have been debating whether the U.S. Supreme Court would find such a requirement to be constitutional.
Why are so many Americans uninsured in the first place? It is true that, for many of us, insurance is just unaffordable. But many more voluntarily choose to forgo health insurance. Some follow religions that prohibit the use of modern medicine. Others prefer non-traditional treatments.
Still others are confident enough in their propensity for health that they are willing to risk the costs of illness or injury in order to direct their money to concerns they believe to be more pressing. And there are some who, recognizing that most people pay insurance companies far more than they are ever likely to need for their own treatment costs, prefer to self-insure by creating their own health fund.
So, does the U.S. Constitution protect these citizens who might object to the health insurance mandate? Possibly. The Supreme Court has previously recognized that the Constitution protects citizens’ rights to associate with others of their choosing, to enter into contracts, to make their own decisions regarding whether or not to receive health care, and, of course, their right to privacy.
The court has also recognized that a constitutional right to do something implies a complementary right not to be forced to do that same thing — the freedom of speech, for example, means that the government may not compel you to speak.
For America’s voluntarily uninsured, a congressional directive to purchase health insurance would mean not only sacrificing a huge amount of money, but also potentially their convictions, personal autonomy, and privacy — all for services they do not want, and in some cases may be prohibited from using.
This sort of mandate would clearly violate some, if not all, of the constitutional rights listed above, although the Supreme Court might decide that congressional interest in passing the mandate justifies the infringement of those rights.
Certain lawmakers are trying to give Missourians an additional layer of protection. Recognizing that state constitutions are permitted to afford liberties beyond those secured under the U.S. Constitution, half of the state Senate has already agreed to cosponsor Senate Joint Resolution 25, which would amend the Missouri Constitution to specify that citizens have a right to decide for themselves whether they will participate in any health care system.
Under this amendment, government officials would also be denied the authority to prevent citizens from offering or accepting direct payment for health care services, and they would not be permitted to substantially limit the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems.
While it is not certain that the Supreme Court would allow state constitutional protections to override a federal statute, this effort could be a useful step toward securing those individual freedoms that ought to be the American birthright.
Dave Roland
|
If they want to tax us, TAX US, a flat rate for health care, that may be a consideration, but then the insurance companies would be out, and they don't want that, the insurance companies would not have helped to push it through.
Don't any of you get that the insurance company wanted this too, they paid and pushed for it to pass and not because they love Americans, but because they love the money it will make them, what’s with the middle man Obama, why pay a middle man for health care when the government will inevitably be in control.
The bill states over and over again how there will be governmental intervention in all aspects of health care from preventative care to end of life, and not just hello care, we are talking affirmative action care with investigations on all matters from you to the doctors to the hospitals.
If you look you can find plenty of articles that talk of the down-fall of governmental health care, the delays the lack of continuity the lack of follow-up and follow-through the lack of equipment and the shortages of supplies, etc.
This is the wrong bill. It really is that simple and those who disagree don’t truly understand the freedom of being an American, and what the repercussion of the loss of that freedom this represents, not to mention the precedence it will set if it does become law and what additional doors of socialist impositions it will open.
It time to wake up and shake off this attempted takeover people, unless you’re just done with personal freedom.
I’m not against health care for the masses, but this isn’t the answer, to violate our freedom, to violate our trust with the backroom shenanigans, this isn’t the right way to treat this country, or the amazing people who reside within it.