Healthcare Reform a Constitutional travesty? ...

[CRH]

What about the constitutional issues in the recent HCR legislation?

What if I don't believe in corporate health care the AMA promotes and provides?

What if I don't believe in treating (suppressing) symptoms with drugs?

What if my only need for health care would be an accident, which is more easily covered by other types of insurance?

What if I want to choose the type of health I pursue, i.e., natural holistic methods, and alternative applications?

Why should I be fined if I do not choose to use an unnatural type of health management?

Why should the government have the right to punish me for my believe in the 'natural order and process', of living and death?

What, does the government own the 'right of maintenance' of my body now?

I think the Obama administration has crossed the line insisting I must buy into corporate health care. By what precedents can they assert their right over my personal choice of health maintenance? How is this different than telling a woman she can not plan her family, choose whether she has children, prevent having children? How does my not having mandated insurance for corporate drug peddling medical maintenance, put any other person in this society at risk?

To what levels will this legislation stoop to insure the fine for non compliance is collected? It is legislated, enforcement will be turned over to the IRS.

Resulting from this, ...

Will data bases be mined for attachable assets?

Will they confiscate my tax refund?

Will they cut other government pensions?

Will they attach my wages or bank accounts?

Will they attach a paper lien to my future Social Security awards?

Will they put a paper lien on my IRA?

Will they prevent the use of credit until leans are satisfied?

This bill already deprives me of the liberty of my choice, will it also deprive me of legally derived income, legal entitlement pensions, or credit? In all could this be a denial, of the pursuit of security and happiness.

I have asked several times on this site, is there an opt out of the legislated mandatory insurance, for philosophical or religious reasons? I have not read about one.

This bill without a penalty free opt out clause, is an affront to the very foundations upon which the society and country have been formed. There are cornerstone principles being destroyed in favor of mandated fascist corporatism, being elevated above basic human rights.

Though this bill has some huge constitutional issues will the government get by with it, because the IRS is too big to fight for the average person?

*** After writing up this post I've discovered another post by LAND SHARK addressing the enforcement of HRC. Well worth reading. (link below)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7323641

on edit: correction of post title, spelling

[Subdivisions]

1. I don't think Hillary is a Constitutional travesty. But, healthcare reform might be. n/t

[WeDidIt]

3. Beat me to it.

:evilgrin:

[CRH]

4. Thanks correction has been made, sometimes I think I'm dyslexic n/t

[MineralMan]

2. Hillary? Is she doing something unconstitutional?

First I've heard.

[madinmaryland]

5. I heard a lot of nasty things about Hillary during the Primaries in GD/P, but never

was she called unconstitutional!!

:D

[CRH]

7. It all them initials, can't keep up with them all, ...

Love your avatar. (:-)

[pnwmom]

6. Are public schools a constitutional travesty? What if you never have children?

What if you don't believe in what the public schools teach?

What if you have children and want to send them to private schools?

Why should you have to pay for public schools that you'll never use?


Because it's to the benefit of the larger society that we live in if we have a public school system -- even if you don't choose to use it.

And it's to the benefit of the larger society that we have health care available to everyone --even if you don't choose to use it.

[CRH]

11. I see your point but for me its a bit of apples and oranges, ...

It is your choice to not use the public system of schools derived from local property taxes as well as state and federal funding. However your child's attendance is not mandatory to that form of education.

Second, I believe it is to the benefit of the larger society that we have health care 'option' available to all.

This is a much larger cost to individuals, than the public school system. What is the figure, not to exceed 10% of gross income. That is a lot for the lower middle class and lower class.

The public schools do not have a corporate monopoly on education, and are governed at the local level by mostly parents, school boards.

[pnwmom]

13. You will not be fined for not choosing to use "unnatural" health care.

You would only be fined for not purchasing a health care policy. (And some policies do cover treatment by natural medicine practitioners, by the way.)

And the cost of something doesn't factor into whether it is unconstitutional. Some school districts charge much higher school taxes than others -- that doesn't make them unconstitutional.


I agree that it would be to society's benefit to have a public option. Unfortunately, we don't have 60 Senators who agree with us.

[CRH]

19. your points are legitimate rebuttal, ...

I just don't agree with them.

Some policies from insurance companies do include treatment by natural medicine practitioners, but almost as an afterthought and the premiums do not reflect a pool of costs of natural medicine treatments and patients that pursue them.

If you find an insurance company that will wright a preventative natural health policy combined with an accident policy for the otherwise uncovered broken arm, let me know, I'm sure the premiums will be much more in line than 3-5 thousand dollars a year. One of the problems of the insurance industry is there are no such policies available, the monopolies toss all such care in with the AMA, pharmaceutical, insurance industry model of care.

The key word going forward needs to be option if we are forced to secure health care though insurance rather than a government run system funded through the national budget, as a human right.

[ixion]

16. public schools are not private corporations

and public schools add to society, whereas insurance companies simply detract from it.

Not a good analogy in my opinion.

[Xicano]

22. +10

Oops, sorry ixion I didn't see your post before I posted the same response. LOL

[ixion]

23. thanks!

no worries... we're on the same page there. :hi:

[Xicano]

21. Public schools are a "public option" ran by the government.

Not a taxation forcing to buy into private schools for profit.

I am just saying..


n/t

[hansberrym]

25. That would depend on which state one lives in.

However it is obvious that the OP was questioning the constitutionality of the HCR plan under the US Constitution.

[L0oniX]

8. Uhm don't look now but the Dems are going down in 2010 and repukes will undo all this.

Progressives will not be suckered twice. When people find out what the direct personal impact on them is (IRS collection/lien threats) they will run to the repuke side like lemmings running from a herd of buffalo. I am ashamed that I had to vote for Obama and even went to see him at a rally. I now have doubts as to whether or not McCain would have been better or as bad or worse. We still have the wars and now we will be forced to pay insurance corporations even if it means selling everything we have to do so. Communist corporatist mutha fuckas!

[cliffordu]

10. Is it OK if I find it weird that seeing a politician at a rally and

voting for him makes you SHAMEFUL???

Really??

[pnwmom]

14. They can't without 60 votes to overcome our filibuster. n/t

[ixion]

18. yep...

I agree.

[cliffordu]

9. WHAT IF SANTA CLAUS IS A KLEPTOMANIAC????

[CRH]

12. Excuse me, but you lost me, I thought this was about mandated insurance legislation???

[cliffordu]

17. well...

This shit:


"What if I don't believe in corporate health care the AMA promotes and provides?

What if I don't believe in treating (suppressing) symptoms with drugs?

What if my only need for health care would be an accident, which is more easily covered by other types of insurance?

What if I want to choose the type of health I pursue, i.e., natural holistic methods, and alternative applications?

Why should I be fined if I do not choose to use an unnatural type of health management?

Why should the government have the right to punish me for my believe in the 'natural order and process', of living and death?

What, does the government own the 'right of maintenance' of my body now?...."



Is about as germaine to the issues and arguments over the Senate plan as my 'question'

Only I know it, apparently.

[CRH]

20. Those points (shit in your words) , ...

are fundamental to making and having a choice, as to the type of health care a person may obtain, by right. Mandates disregard this fundamental right.

[ixion]

15. these are all valid, excellent questions

I'm cross referencing this with a post I started the other day that was about the constitutionality of HCR.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7321117

kicked and recommended.

[CRH]

24. Thanks, I read your post at the link, ...

I certainly hope this legislation finds an option rather than mandated conclusion. If the final consolidated bill is mandated, I expect to see some vigorous challenges in the court. At least I hope so.