CBS didn't stop Andy Rooney

[RedRide]

Every Constitutional scholar says the health insurance madate is constitutional.
It speaks volumes that the right wing did not bat an eyelash when the republicans (like Mitt Romney and John McCain) proposed the same mandate.

The pupose of a madate is to insure that there is a lage enouigh pool to cover claims and to insure that those who have insurance are not paying for health care for those who choose not to have insurance. Unless someone is very rich, I can't imagine the mindset that would make someone decide that they don't need health insurance other then a selfish "let society pay my medical bills" attitude.

The madate will help insure that that people will pay their own way as far as health insurance is concerned. Republicans liked the idea in the past but, now that Obama agrees, they no longer like it? It sounds like pure politics to me.
It does seem that the madate details is a bit of a compromise and it's more intended to change the mindset of the US poulation.

Like I said the bill is not perfect but is is closer to acceptable than the status quo.

[yarrr]

Originally Posted by RedRide

Every Constitutional scholar says the health insurance madate is constitutional.

I don't mean to interrupt the essay contest, but, throwing around completely false statements like that isn't winning any arguments for you. Took me exactly 2 seconds in google to prove that wrong.

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-...th-174086.html

If "every constitutional scholar" could agree on ANYTHING, the world might explode.

[RedRide]

Originally Posted by yarrr

I don't mean to interrupt the essay contest, but, throwing around completely false statements like that isn't winning any arguments for you. Took me exactly 2 seconds in google to prove that wrong.

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-...th-174086.html

If "every constitutional scholar" could agree on ANYTHING, the world might explode.

I do believe you are confusing legal scholars with constitutional scholars. You are also confusing politics with reality. The Texas state attorney general (Greg Abbott) is not exactly non patisan.

From youk link:

...........Several legal scholars, however, say Abbott's constitutional analysis falls short because it underestimates congressional power and relies on a selective reading of prior Supreme Court rulings.........

So, even the link you posted bolsters my statements.

Granted, there might be a constitutional scholar or two who may have a question about the legality of the mandate but the madate does stand on solid legal constititional ground.

BTW, Obama was himself a "constitutional law professor" so, I believe he would personally be aware of any potential problems in this area.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by RedRide

Every Constitutional scholar says the health insurance madate is constitutional.
It speaks volumes that the right wing did not bat an eyelash when the republicans (like Mitt Romney and John McCain) proposed the same mandate.

The pupose of a madate is to insure that there is a lage enouigh pool to cover claims and to insure that those who have insurance are not paying for health care for those who choose not to have insurance. Unless someone is very rich, I can't imagine the mindset that would make someone decide that they don't need health insurance other then a selfish "let society pay my medical bills" attitude.

The madate will help insure that that people will pay their own way as far as health insurance is concerned. Republicans liked the idea in the past but, now that Obama agrees, they no longer like it? It sounds like pure politics to me.
It does seem that the madate details is a bit of a compromise and it's more intended to change the mindset of the US poulation.

Like I said the bill is not perfect but is is closer to acceptable than the status quo.

Where in the Constitution does it allow for the federal government to force a citizen to purchase a product/service and from a private business no less? This is the first time in US history that such a law has passed.

What's next, a mandate that each US citizen must purchase a new GM vehicle every 5 years to insure the prolonged success of the US auto industry for the benefit of our economy? Sound ridiculous? Well that's what we're dealing with here.

I'd like to know what these so called scholar's argument is for this. The commerce clause? It does NOT apply.

[RedRide]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

Where in the Constitution does it allow for the federal government to force a citizen to purchase a product/service and from a private business no less? This is the first time in US history that such a law has passed.

What's next, a mandate that each US citizen must purchase a new GM vehicle every 5 years to insure the prolonged success of the US auto industry for the benefit of our economy? Sound ridiculous? Well that's what we're dealing with here.

I'd like to know what these so called scholar's argument is for this. The commerce clause? It does NOT apply.

You got it a bit backwards
Where in ther constitution does it say you can't?

Fact is, the mandate is intended to persuade stupid people who think they don't neeed health insurance to get insurance so they will cease to be an economic burden on society.

The health care bill is not designed to insure the succes of any industry. It is to insure health care for the citizens of the richest country on the planet.
Its really sad the we need a law to insure this particulurly in a country that claims to have "Christian values".

I can say "what's next" also.
What's next, people who refuse to purchase food and expect others to pay for it to keep them alive as they do with health insursance that they also refuse to purchase?

BTW, we are all required by laws to purchase car insurance.
But you dont need car and therefore they/you don't need insurance you say.
Can you also say that you will never have health issues? It's a given, you are alive and you will have a need for health care even if you never owned a car.