From the Portland Civil Rights Examiner


"Why is Obamacare unconstitutional?

* April 7th, 2010 8:04 pm PT

Here is a simple question for all Americans.... please state, in what other area has the federal government ever regulated inactivity?

The answer is: none.

Why? Because it’s unconstitutional.

The founders believed that a monarch (or dictator or any sort of legislative body) should not have the power to force anyone to do anything. Of course this doesn’t apply to rules governing civil society such as criminal laws against things like rape or thievery, but we aren’t discussing that here. We are discussing being forced to buy something, possibly against your will. In otherwords, inactivity.

The federal government, with Obamacare, is forcing Americans to buy health insurance. It is not free. It must be bought and paid for.

Poor people will get reimbursed when they file their taxes, but they will still have to fork out the monthly premium. They might get the money back at the end of the year, but they will still be forced to buy it, even if they can’t afford the monthly premium. This seems to be a detail that most liberals gloss over in their rush to declare a human rights victory of some sort.

Just where is a 19 year old going to get the 600$ a month to pay for their own health insurance on minimum wage (round that off to 9.25$ an hour for 40 hours a week and that’s 1480$ a month) for a single person? This is 40% that hypothetical persons income. Employers aren’t going to offer it as a benefit of employment if all Americans are forced to buy it themselves. Where is a family of 5 living on an income of 1450$ a month going to get 1200$ a month for Health insurance? Or does the insurance company bill the Fed? But wait, isn't the IRS is going to have the power to garnish tax returns and or force filers to pay an additional fee (which is what exactly?) at tax time if they don't prove they bought health insurance? No one seems to know how this is going to be done unto us.

Hold on a minute here, you mean legislators didn’t think of these things? Didn’t they read the thousands of pages in the bill? Oh right, the House of Representatives and Senate didn’t read it before voting on it, it was just too complicated... sorry about that America. We just have to wait until it's implemented to find out.... If that doesn't make you uncomfortable, then nothing will.

Let's illustrate just what this means in real life, because Liberals try to liken health insurance to flood insurance or car insurance in the vain attempt to justify it. The absence of logic in these arguments/comparisons is astounding to say the least.

A given person chooses to live in a flood plain, perhaps to own and drive a car. A person chooses to do these things, which then creates certain obligations which are known beforehand. So in choosing to enter into these specific actions, it puts a further known burden on that person, by that persons deliberate choice.

Did you choose to be born and take your first breath? No, you didn’t, of course not. But because you were born and lived, you must buy health insurance? According to Obamacare you do.

The difference is glaringly simple; you can opt out of those other burdens (car insurance or flood insurance) by choosing not to engage in those activities, actions or purchases. But because you breathe and were born in and live in America you must now buy health insurance.

Lets stick to the hypothetical car comparison so popular with liberals. If the government can force you to enter a given market... what is to stop the federal government from forcing one to.... buy a GM car? Yea, you have a car already, but because you are an adult with a drivers license and already own a car, what is to stop the federal government from dictating that you must now buy a GM car or you are not a legal American - subject to all of the tactics used by the IRS in collecting monies “owed” as a remuneration for NOT owning a GM? Does that not mean you must now buy a GM/Chrysler car if you intend to ever cross a state boundary? Wait, wouldn’t that mandate that the government can force you to carry papers stating that you also own a GM car if you happen to be driving your second car, a Ford…? And force state border crossings to make sure everyone is in compliance? Yep, you betcha it would.

What is the difference between buying health insurance and buying a car?

If Obamacare is upheld as a legal and constitutional bill, absolutely nothing.

Nothing.

You weren’t in the market for a GM (in other words you were inactive in the auto market), but you will be forced into buying one in order to drive from Portland Oregon across the 3500 foot long interstate bridge to Vancouver Washington with out paying a mandated government fine enforced by the IRS which also has the power to take out leins on your home and seize your checking account.

If the federal government can regulate inactivity, which is what they are doing with health insurance, then they can dictate that you must do anything they tell you to do - with no limits.

Obamacare dictates to those who would not otherwise be in the market for a given item (health insurance), they must enter into it. Would you like to be forced to buy a hand gun under a conservative government? How about be forced to work cleanup duty for 40 hours a year in the local trash dump - a working week out of your life? Or how about buying 6000$ worth of Molybdenum a year? Don’t know what that is? Doesn’t matter, you have to buy it because it’s “for the good of the nation” that you buy it.

Enforced by the IRS.

You name it; it’s on the table if Obamacare stands. This is what happens in a dictatorship. The dictator tells you what to do, then you must do it or face the wrath of the government agency in charge of compliance. In this case, the IRS .

This puts the IRS buying thousands of shotguns into a whole different sort of light now doesn’t it?

These simple truths being self evident, how would you like to live in North Korea? Don’t worry about the costs of moving, it will be just the same here in the United States of America, no need to leave home.

This is what the slippery slope of Socialism/Communism leads to; the government telling you what to do, what to buy, and when.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think government of the United States of America should have that sort of power."

Dianna Cotter

End Quote

Makes sense to me.

If the government is truly serious about the health of American citizens (which they're not) they would not side with big insurance on something like this but would instead have signed into law strict regulations on what insurance must cover and how much they can charge for it. Regulate the industry at the industry level instead of laying it on the backs of those who work and pay their own way.

The federal government has stepped out of bounds for years and it's time they get back on the field.

I concur and they can start by giving up their self elected retirement and health care plans and retire on SS and buy Blue Cross/Blue Shield!

The raw math alone on a FORCED mandatory industry does not add up. What prevents them from "raising" premiums exactly?

And to fine someone who can't afford a mandatory insurance? That goes beyond illegal and immoral. That is outright extortion!

Some "Lawmakers" seen this but everyone Mediawise belittled them for seeing what a farce Obamacare was/is.

I absolutely refuse to participate. I will not have Obamacare shoved down my throat!

Nuff said.

The profits in Obamacare are mandated to not exceed 20%. The traditional profits are around 5% but the actual profits are made by investing the premiums.

Yeah! In what the STOCK MARKET?

I guess I miss the 'profit' part when I was reading...

Reckon its time to read again...

quite honestly I have been saying this exactly for months now - it IS unconstitutional - not to offer it, but to require us to hold it. Not only is it unconstitutional but it may violate anti trust regulations as we should be able to choose not only whether we want the insurance, but also if we want the Feds (who have their own tidy, non intrusive insurance) to be our providers

the current administration is hoping, I hypothesize, that the watering down of American public education means nobody will really know or remember what our rights are...I think they really thought they could slide this by by candy coating it "the common good" and no one would notice...what's next? collective farms, Mr Stalin?

ENOUGH! When are people going to wake up?

while ur reading check on the investments the fed made with the social security collections its made for years & years. pray tell if the feds invested it well? I mean look at their social programs: Welfare, Social Security, Medicare - fraught with issues shortages (short funding) and we now want to give them insurance??? Oh please.

My head's in the clouds now and then but I'm not that stupid

Wrong!
This is the fourth case brought up by the Repubs. 2 ruled for the law to stand, one ruled that only the mandatory part was unconstitutional, and then this one.
All the Judges are district Fed Judges whose rulings are only good in their districts, and this one,



It overturns nothing.
It's Republican Politics meant to get the case heard by the Republican controlled Supreme Court.

I am not a republican...

I whole heartedly agree with this suit being seen by the Supreme Court...

It violates MY rights...

I don't mind paying a bit more for my health care to take care of those that have none...

But I will be DAMND if my government is going to TELL me I have to BUY anything...

poor analogy between buying a car and buying health insurance

one is a tangible object one will receive for their funds, one is a proof of ability to pay 'IF' something happens

more accurate would be buying car insurance and buying health insurance

If something happens, emergency rooms are not permitted to turn us away

IF something happens, someone has to treat us for which their will be a cost

IF something happens, insurance is some assurance that those bills will be at least partially covered


and it is correct that the government could not mandate auto insurance, but the states sure could and , eventually, they did

likewise with healthcare, even if the feds are stopped from getting this started now, it will happen eventually, when people feel the affects of their hospitals shutting down and being underfunded and their access to healthcare starts to diminish ON top of remaining expensive enough to send them into bankruptcy or cost them their homes,,,

it will catch on, regardless of whether it is fed or state,,,

The purpose of the US constitution is to limit the power of the federal government. Any power, not specifically given to the federal government by the constitution is reserved for the states and to the people. Comparing what the states can do to what the federal government can do is a false comparison.

The question I have is that why aren't people upset when their STATE makes it MANDATORY that they buy insurance?

What's the difference? You are still being mandated to purchase something.

So I guess it's okay if a state takes away your liberty and freedom but we fight like hell if the Federal Government does it?

I always laugh at how people are so concerned about their freedoms and liberty but yet they cannot even purchase alcohol in their state/counties. Didn't the constitution repeal prohibition?

God wanted us to be happy....that's why he gave us beer.

That is actually an excellent example. The US had to change the constitution to give itself the power to control booze, then the amendment was repealed which took that power away. The federal government doesn't have the power to tell citizens what they must buy and no one has changed the constitution to allow them to do it.

who is comparing,

the feds may get it through on the commerce clause, and if they dont the states may start pushing it through for practical reasons,,,

Im not upset to contribute when its for a practical reason. People dont know when they will have a car 'accident', thats why its called an accident. Far too many people would get caught in financial hardship because of accidents where the other party had no means of contributing to restoration. The States mandating insurance, made sure people showed an ability to pay in the case of an accident before they were allowed the privilege to drive a car.

In the US we all have the 'privilege' of going into any emergency room and being treated. When those costs pile up due to patients who never pay, those hospitals have to cut back or shut down. To protect the hospitals from such unfair burden, I think it is completely practical for states to mandate we all show the ability to pay in case of an emergency in order to continue the 'privilege' of being treated in such emergencies.

They can do it by mandating insurance(which I think gives us the same choice we have always had and possibly lower costs) or they can make it another/higher tax for a health fund to cover such affected hospitals the way they tax fof the use of schools. But we all know TAXES are the enemy of the american culture's mindset.

but it cannot be mandatory - they will screw it up so we should have other availanle options just as we do with other insurance in a free economy. You do not have to have car insurance. If you don't drive a car, for example. And the reasons for car insurance really are nto comparable to those for this manadatory HC (which like it or not is unconstitutional). I do not participate in the traditinal western healthcare system - though I have had the opportunity - why should I be forced to buy something I am not using or wanting? It's ridiculous. And, if I do decide I want it, I want the freedom to choose my insurer - let the Gov't compete with industry to provide the best program

but it cannot be mandatory - we should have other availanle options just as we do with other insurance in a free economy. You do not have to have car insurance. If you don't drive a car, for example. And the reasons for car insurance really are nto comparable to those for this manadatory HC (which like it or not is unconstitutional). I do not participate in the traditinal western healthcare system - though I have had the opportunity - why should I be forced to buy something I am not using or wanting? It's ridiculous. And, if I do decide I want it, I want the freedom to choose my insurer - let the Gov't compete with industry to provide the best program

I think the reaons are extremely comparable , in two words

accidents(or in healthcare speak,,,emergencies) and COSTS


in either case though, through taxes or mandates, the US will eventuall feel the global pressure to catch up with the rest of the western world and provide affordable care to its citizens,,,