Constitutionality of Universal Health care

tomder55 · Oct 14, 2009, 06:21 AM

When FDR sold the country the Social Security bill of goods he argued that we were going to contribute into an insurance pool .But he knew it was unconstitutional under the "reserve clause" of the Constitution (the 10th Amendment) for the Federal Government to compel people to do it .The Constitution NEVER authorized the national government to operate a social insurance system.

So when social security was introduced all language about insurance was stripped from the legislation even though it was still publicly argued as an insurance scheme. Thomas Eliot, the author of the bill, later confessed that he had deliberately made the bill confusing ..“Lest the court take judicial notice of the way officials were trying to sell the program, administrators believed it was imperative to keep the language sufficiently opaque.” The taxing and benefit clauses were separated in the bill so it would not appear that they were linked.

So although it was sold repeatedly as an insurance program in which our Social Security tax constituted a premium that, guaranteed us an absolute right to receive benefits in our old age.....it was designed as a welfare program. FDR privately boasted “We put those payroll contributions there so as to give contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions,” ..... “With those taxes, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

Social Security has survived SCOTUS challenges specifically because the government has consistently argued that it isn't and never was an insurance plan.It was upheld in Helvering v. Davis (1937).At the time SCOTUS was under pressure with the threat of FDR packing the court. Under that duress the court conveniently overlooked the obvious and tap danced around the consitutional questions to confirm the legality of Social Security . We've payed into the Pozi Scheme ever since.

Social Security survived SCOTUS challenges because it was constructed in such a way that FDR could argue that it was NOT an insurance policy. It was challenged under the 10th Amendment Reserve Clause because there is NO constitutional authority for the Federal Government to run an insurance policy .

ETWolverine · Oct 15, 2009, 06:57 AM

So, excon wants to "fix the system" by "scrapping and rebuilding the foundation" of that system.

The foundation of our system was the Constitution... no surprise to me that excon wants to scrap it and rebuild it in his own image. Or that that's what the libs are proposing.

excon · Oct 15, 2009, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Yep, and now they're using that industry report showing how much the Baucus plan would raise premiums as an excuse to push for the "public option."

Hello again, Steve:

Or, put another way.... The report threatened the country, in that if the Baucus plan is passed, they WILL raise premiums - thereby giving the Democrats a great reason to "push" for the public option....

excon

speechlesstx · Oct 15, 2009, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Or, put another way.... The report threatened the country, in that if the Baucus plan is passed, they WILL raise premiums - thereby giving the Democrats a great reason to "push" for the public option...

The report was a warning of what the Dems want to do to Americans which is screw them.

speechlesstx · Oct 15, 2009, 10:05 AM

By the way, the plan under consideration has different levels of coverage, bronze, silver, gold and platinum. Who gets which one? Are they saying they approve of the rich being able to buy better coverage anyway?

Since the poor can't afford the platinum plan isn't it discriminatory against the poor?

Since poverty "disproportionately affects" blacks, isn't it racist to give them lesser coverage?

Since women still supposedly make less than men, isn't it sexist for the government to offer a plan that's out of reach for working women?

Sounds to me like they're giving their blessing to rich white guys.

speechlesstx · Oct 17, 2009, 05:24 AM

Since the other thread has been closed...

Quote:

Get in shape or pay a price.

That's a message more Americans could hear if health-care reform provisions passed by the Senate finance and health committees become law. By more than doubling the maximum penalties that companies can apply to employees who flunk medical evaluations, the legislation could put workers under intense financial pressure to lose weight, stop smoking or even lower their cholesterol.

The bipartisan initiative, largely eclipsed in the health-care debate, builds on a trend that is in play among some corporations and that more workers will see in the benefits packages they bring home during this fall's open enrollment. Some employers offer lower premiums to workers who complete personal health assessments; others limit coverage for smokers.

The current legislative effort would take the trend a step further. It is backed by major employer groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. It is opposed by labor unions and organizations devoted to combating serious illnesses, such as the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Diabetes Association.

Critics say employers could use the rewards and penalties to drive some workers out of their health plans.

President Obama and members of Congress have said they are trying to create a system in which no one can be denied coverage or charged higher premiums based on their health status. The insurance lobby has said it shares that goal. However, so-called wellness incentives could introduce a colossal loophole. In effect, they would permit insurers and employers to make coverage less affordable for people exhibiting risk factors for problems such as diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

"Everybody said that we're going to be ending discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But this is, in effect, discrimination again based on preexisting conditions," said Ann Kempski of the Service Employees International Union.

Let's all say in unison, "I love the nanny state." And as I said in the previous post, it sure looks to me like the Dems love discrimination much more than they'll admit, and isn't that 'unconstitutional?'

tomder55 · Oct 18, 2009, 02:42 AM

I'm sure there's some protection in the 14th amendment for 'people with preconditions'.What ?being a fatty who smokes isn't a precondition? If it isn't then why would they deserve higher premiums? I guarantee that any other precondition ;self inflicted or otherwise that was met with denial or even an increase in premium rates would be met with a howl of protest.

It's outright discrimination I tell ya ! If a women can use the argument that "it's my body " to justify killing a baby then logically the fat person has the same argument in their favor to kill themselves.

I propose the creation of a new bureaucracy....the FEA (Fat Enforcement Agency) to strictly enforce these draconial Democrat proposals. Also beyond that , motorcyclists, surfers, people who live in unsafe neighborhoods,cell phone users and generally anyone who's not perfect must be penalized for living dangerous lives.They must all be forced to enter a Wellness Center Gulag or be denied care.......like granny.

speechlesstx · Oct 18, 2009, 04:29 AM

The FEA, sounds appropriate enough. I can just picture goons in sweats and unitards rifling through your cabinets for contraband Twinkies.

excon · Oct 18, 2009, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

When FDR sold the country the Social Security bill of goods

Hello again, tom:

It's clear that if you think old people, who have no family to rely on, can't work anymore, and didn't provide for themselves, should just be turned out onto the street - you wouldn't be a supporter of the current proposals.

ME? I have some of those beliefs.. But, I just can't abide disposing of our old and sick people onto the streets to DIE... I've visited country's where they do that. They're ALL in the third world. I dunno what's so attractive about THAT.

Do you remember that old adage about, when you're young and have a heart, you're a Democrat... but, when you grow up and get a brain, you become a Republican??? I never grew up. Don't bother me none, either. In fact, if the winger behavior you guys exhibit here, is that of grownups, I'm thrilled I didn't catch it.

excon

excon · Oct 18, 2009, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

The report was a warning of what the Dems want to do to Americans which is screw them.

Hello again, Steve:

I agree with you. That was the PURPOSE of the report... Scare America. That IS what you guys are good at, after all. But, for lots and lots of reasons you'll NEVER buy, it's clear what the report really is... I wasn't mistaken in my assessment above. It's a warning/threat of what the INSURANCE INDUSTRY will do, if the current plan is passed.

Looks to me like the insurance industry bluffed, and Obama called. I think he's got a better hand.

excon

speechlesstx · Oct 18, 2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

I think he's got a better hand.

Now you're getting it, we've said that all along. Private insurers won't be able to compete with someone that holds all the cards.



At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you will be able to: Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+ topics. Accept money for answers that you provide. Communicate privately with other members (PM). See fewer ads. Sign Up!