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 constitutional questions to confirm the legality of Social Security . We've paid 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 .

Constitution? What constitution? This congress showed their contempt for the constitution by attaching their speech restricting hate crimes bill to the defense authorization bill. IN so doing they watered down Sam Brownback's amendment to the bill protecting speech to say as Byron York put it, "your First Amendment rights are protected -- unless they're not."

If they have no problem assailing such a fundamental right as free speech they won't let a little thing like the constitution interfere with the rest of their agenda.

It's a good argument, Tom. Problem is that you need a court that is going to be sympathetic to your logic. And this court is NOT sympathetic to your logic.

So you can be right and still lose the trial.

UHC has to be killed BEFORE it becomes law, because it would survive any legal challenge to it's Constitutionality, no matter how right and legal that challenge would be.

Elliot

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Thomas Jefferson

"If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?"
South Carolina Senator William Drayton 1828

I will go even further... the individual mandate being proposed is also unconstitutional for the same reasons.They will look long and hard to find precedent that says the government can force you to purchase insurance. Not even the broadest definitions of the commerce clause covers this. To make the individual mandate constitutional will require the same type of sleigh of hand that FDR used in his Social security deception.

In 1994, during the debate over the Clinton health care plan, the CBO described an individual mandate as “an unprecedented form of federal action.”
“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” ... “An individual mandate has two features that, in combination, make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would have to be heavily regulated by the federal government.”
And recently the CRC considered the issue and said that there was a possibility that the commerce clause could be further broadened to include the individual mandate .However it concluded “Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the commerce clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Constitutionality of Universal Health care

---

Hello tom:

Yaaaaawn... Wake me up when we we're actually considering Universal Health Care.

Ok, what the hell. Even though the public option ISN'T Universal Health Care either, if THAT gets into the bill, I'll argue its Constitutionality.

excon

Yes, even within the same party they can't agree with what they want.

Ex ,what about the point I make in #4 ? The mandatory purchase of health insurance is also unconstitutional . The Baucus bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee yesterday had fines (and the threat of imprisonment ) for those who refused to insure themselves.In fact ,all of the bills under consideration in the House and Senate would make government approved health insurance enrollment compulsory for all Americans.

You see ,its an elaborate game to kill the insurance industry shaping the market for that ultimate universal state run system. Here's how it works. First you force insurance companies to take on all applicants regardless of the risk at a reduced premium price. To compensate for this you force healthy people who are low risk to sign onto an insurance plan at higher premiums than their risk justifies.

Well the people with preconditions of course see this as a good deal and sign on . When the insurers in turn try to make up for the loss by increasing the premium of the healthy ,the healthy make the cost calculation to drop out. Eventually the insurance company can't make money so they terminate the plan. By the end of this spiral fewer people end up insured then before... or an unconstitutional public option is created. The Baucus Bill requires insurers to take all new applicants without regard to risk starting in 2013.
I guarantee that any bill passed that includes no denial for preconditions without adjusting the premiums to compensate for the risk ;and the provisions of mandatory participation by the healthy will fail... and Congress will again introduce an unconstitutional "public option" /universal system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You see ,its an elaborate game to kill the insurance industry shaping the market for that ultimate universal state run system.

---

Hello again, tom.

When the foundation of a house is broken, you can fix the cracked walls... you can fix the broken ceilings, you can repair the broken doorways... But, if you don't fix the foundation, the house will keep on crumbling into ruin...

The foundation of our health care industry is broken... You can't fix it unless you overhaul it. ONE party is afraid to do it. The other party won't let 'em even do a little. So, in my view, any fix, that doesn't fix the foundation is bound to fail.

You think it's a game and/or a plan by the Democrats... I suggest they couldn't plan their way out of a burning building... Yet, by plan, or by happenstance, the present proposals won't work, and we'll back at it later - if we survive.

So, I guess I agree - kind of.

excon

You are right about one thing. It will put a wrecking ball to the current system. I doubt they will create anything better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You see ,its an elaborate game to kill the insurance industry shaping the market for that ultimate universal state run system.

---

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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?'

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 you ! 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.

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

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 don't know what's so attractive about THAT.

Do you remember that 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

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

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.