I would think the whole plan would be canned if the SC agrees.

I am sure there are good things in it, I haven't read all of it.

For example doing away with pre-existing conditions would be good, especially the way the insurance companies are taking advantage of it.
This was meant to keep people from taking advantage of the insurance companies but now it is the other way around.

Let's say you or your family elect not to have health insurance. You find one of your kids has to have a minor operation, so you get him/her on a policy. After the operation you cancle the coverage until next time you need it. This isn't fair to the insurance company IMO.

Now, let's say you have always had coverage, but have switched jobs and have a new plan with a different company. In most cases you pay for full coverage even though you have a 2 year wait on pre-existing conditions. Not so bad, you'd think, but if years back a tumor was found and removed under your old plan and over the course of the next 2/5 years you go back for routine follow up blood tests and X rays, the new plan would not cover it--even though you are paying full coverage rates, you are in fact not getting what you are paying for which is full coverage.

In this case the insurance compamy is taking advantage of you, the other way around.

Things in it that are bad? IMO there are many.

For example:

It gives the goverment direct access to your bank accounts in order to withdraw money, ref pages 58 and 59.

It doesn't apply to all Americans, with union members, groups like ACORN, and of course congress theirselves, refer to page 65.

The goverment will set what doctors will be paid and all will make the same, regardless of their specialty, refer to pages 241 and 253.

Cancer care will be rationed according to the patient's age, refer to page 272.

Ones on SS will be required to attend a "end of life planning" seminar every 5 years, refer to page 425.

The goverment chooses which doctors will write an end-of-life order, refer to page 429.

This is a dandy: The bill would give insurance to those who are not even Americans that are in the country illegally, refer to page 50.

There are many others, but it is no wonder congress elected not to be a subject of such a thing.

Funny now that the house speaker said we have to pass it on order for us to see what was in it.

Could you post the link you used for the page references. Some sites have the act formatted differently so the page numbers don't always match up.

Thanks.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-needs-check-/

Some of it from here, maybe?

An interesting proposal.

This ruling is from a Federal Judge in my hometown, which is kind of "cool".:yeah:


Anyone who knows the Constitution is well aware that the mandate is unconstitutional.I am a first year law student and one of the required first year classes is Constitutional Law.Obama, who is no fan of the Constitution(because it stands in the way of his agenda) does know the Constitution, he went to law school and(ironically) taught constitutional law(kind of scary this guy teaching others) in Chicago. Judges who ruled in favor are well aware of this but they let their left wing views prevent them from being objective.Found it funny when Barry accused the Judge of judicial activism for adhering to the constitution.

You know, Obama admin could have filed for severability,but they did not so now the entire law will sink or swim.

Anyway, good job to the Judge, can't wait for this to get to SCOTUS, it will come down to Kennedy but will be shocked if he goes with the government on this one.Most likely a 5-4 striking Obamacare down.

P.S. Props to the judge for using Barry's own words against him, shows his hyprocrisy.

Yeah, it is, actually. But it would need copays substantial enough to deter people seeking emergent care for non-emergent conditions.

Since I agree with the recent ruling 100% regarding any law requiring someone to buy something they'd need to set it up as a tax program like SS (I was against republican plans that had mandates for the same reason—they are grossly beyond the scope of government power (and yeah, I'm against requiring insurance to have a car as well)). They should dismantle medicaid completely (it is hopelessly broken), and repeal medicare part D (no one who paid in and is now collected expected free prescriptions during their working lives).

Catastrophic care insurance is also the least expensive, and most important from a public standpoint (since anyone showing up in an ER emergently MUST be seen, period). This would guarantee payment for trauma facilities, etc. Note that private is still an option here. the government would simply put out a bid for 300 million customers, and play hardball on cost and benefits.

The should also change the rules so insurance can compete over state lines (odd that congress decides to rape the interstate commerce clause for this terrible bill, yet didn't bother to actually regulate interstate commerce and allow insurance to become competitive across state lines).

It's alright I was messin with you, I wasn't offended, some one said judge was from home town I'm in Florida Cocoa Beach 80 degrees today. Sleep easy Yubba's on duty.

I kinda liked the SD legislator's idea. If government can mandate people buy something, all for the public good of course - then lets mandate everyone above the age of 21 who is not disqualified for criminal or mental reasons, must purchase a gun. That way, they are prepared to adequately defend themselves. This of course would be for the good of society, and they would need to pay for and attend the requisite classes for gun safety, etc. as well.

Yes, they are proposing this only to prove a point, but I think its bloody brilliant. If the government can mandate you buy insurance, it can mandate you buy a gun.

A gun mandate would not fit under the concept of General Welfare, however, whereas a health care insurance mandate would. That's why they really have no point to make with this kind of an outlandish bill. Indeed, as far as health care is concerned, it has been upheld as being part of the General Welfare clause since 1798 following the creation and subsequent passage of the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen, which John Adams signed. It created the first mandatory insurance program in the country's history, authorized the creation of an associated health care service (in addition to making insurance mandatory, as was previously discussed, for all sailors), and instituted the first official payroll tax.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29099806/A...amen-July-1798

But on, this is the exact kind of childish behavior coming from a lawmaker that people should be opposing en masse- the fact that he's wasting public funds trying to pass it off as being legitimate aside.

Stealth Hunter - as I have said repeatedly, and everyone in favor of government health care seems to want to ignore - is that the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen was legal only because it was a tax/fee on international trade and did not touch domestic trade, which the federal government is supposed to regulate international trade. Trying to say such regulation is equal to a mandate upon all citizens is beyond a mere stretch.

Secondly, the gun mandate as written is for the General Welfare. It states so clearly, in that its purpose is to insure that every citizen has the adequate tools for necessary self defense. Passing a law that insures that every citizen has a chance to protect themselves does as much, if not more, to promote the General Welfare.

The highest number of "victims" of having no health insurance a year in the US? 45,000.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5318652.shtml

Now - taking the crimes of murder, rape, assault and robbery, there were 1,319,301 cases where someone was victimized.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Hmmm.. making sure 1.3 Million victims a year are protected promotes the General Welfare a lot more than concentrating on 45,000. Oh, and of course, lets not forget, mandating everyone own a gun will also cost a LOT less than giving everyone health care. Lower cost is good for the General Welfare too....

The Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen was not established to create solely a "tax/fee on international trade"; it was created to ensure that both the merchant and military sailors of the nation were healthy and fit to do their jobs and continue with their lives- the subsequent effect being the maintaining of an effective merchant fleet and military fleet-- and able to have insurance for this coverage. Merchant crews were important because they were responsible for keeping up trade, military crews were important because they were responsible for the protection of the merchant crews and because they served as the first line of defense if a state of war came to exist with a foreign country. The payroll taxes which were introduced were created to pay for the care and fund the hospitals which the sailors of the era used. Indeed, the care standards that the ". . . convenient accommodations, medical assistance, necessary attendance, and supplies . . ." were to meet were even moreso clearly defined by the May 1802 amendment to the 1798 Act.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29100111/A...eamen-May-1802

The act affected all sailors of the United States, military and merchant, performing their duties domestically and internationally.

Hardly, given that the act also, again, forced merchant sailors to buy insurance that would cover them in case they were injured or sick (as in privately employed merchant sailors; read the act lol; again it touched on ALL sailors of the United States operating domestically and internationally).

Self-defense is not defined in General Welfare, nor has it ever been. COMMON defense, on the other hand, is a part of General Welfare, but hat pertains to protecting the country from threats that warrant usage of the military- both foreign and domestically (i.e. open war/civil war, terrorism, rebellions, etc.), not self-defense. The gun mandate that is being proposed from South Dakota for private citizens is therefore invalid because it does not represent common defense and therein cannot be considered a part of the General Welfare clause. The only mandates pertaining to firearms and private citizens that the United States has ever passed in its entire history were the Militia Acts of 1792.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

The First Act was created to define what a militia was and how it was to function and operate, the Second Act clarified on the structure of militias. It was the second one that required all "free able-bodied white male citizens" between the ages of 18 and 45 to purchase (if they did not own one or all of the following already) a working musket, bayonet with a belt and scabbard, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men who owned rifles were required to purchase (if they did not own one or all of the following already) a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.

Even then, the Militia Acts only pertained to "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe", though those examples would fit within the criteria of common defense.

What's your point? Your article's own source says that if universal coverage were enacted, it would be a life saving measure that would reduce that number of citizens who die each year because of a lack of insurance coverage to within a fraction of what it currently is:

http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-...-US-adults.pdf

Surely you'd agree that it would be within our best interests, as a civilized nation and as considerate people, to do everything within our power that we could in order to improve the system which we as a society use in order to uphold the health of our people?

There are several things I should touch on here, but it would be a lot simpler if I just pointed this out to you: crimes concerning rape, murder, assault, etc. are an issue of the Criminal Justice System element our nation employs, not self-defense. General Welfare includes Criminal Justice (which is a collective interest of the nation), but, again, not self- defense (which may or may not be an interest to an individual person). See this link for a brief rundown (with sources, should you want to read up on anything further on the matter): http://www.ehow.com/about_5070188_criminal-justice.html

EDIT: Before I forget to ask, how many of those murders, rapes, etc. occurred in South Dakota, anyway?

Not that the two have any correlation to each other at all lol. But I digress.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to explain it in this thread, but I'm guessing it will be a lot, so let me just say, again, that self-defense is not part of General Welfare. A mandate that would require all citizens to own firearms in the interest of self-defense would, thusly, not constitute an issue of General Welfare. Hence, it would be an invalid claim to even try to draft up such a mandate on those grounds. Thankfully, nobody is considering, and rightfully so, this proposal at hand seriously. It isn't going to pass in South Dakota, and it isn't going to lead to anything changing on a national level in the future, either.

Lowering the amount of money allocated to the General Welfare system, which keeps hospitals, schools, roads, prisons, etc. in shape and functioning as they should be, by targeting areas with high costs isn't exactly a good idea. And it's pretty easy to see the connection as to why it isn't.