Originally Posted by Mac1958
I've often seen the Democrats refer to the "promote the general welfare" phrase.
As I understand it, they take "promote the general welfare" to mean "assume as much control as possible to make everything fair and to make everyone even, because we all know that the feeble populace can't take care of itself."
Something like that.
...
There is no constutional authority unless you construct one extremely liberally, and I do mean liberally. This is really not a nutcase or birther type argument. The CBO is supposed to be independent, bi-patisan, etc but back during Hillarycare they addressed the issue of mandate and stopped short of saying it is unconstitional (because that is not their job) but they emphasized that it would be the first example in American history of government (talking fed govt here) mandating the purchase or participation in something.
People such as Mrs. Pelosi cite the example of states and auto insurance and the constitition etc. However, and this would be a shock to Pelosi, the constitution gave powers to the states and limited the power of the federal government except where powers were expressly granted to the National Government. This would come as shocker to her.
It gets a little dicey for the lib constitutional argument because the court has ruled many times that a person (an adult anyway) has the right to refuse medical care. Now we are arguing that they have the right to refuse health care but can't refuse health insurance. Okayyy, fine. If Thomas Jefferson heard that argument his eyes would roll around in his head like a slot machine and two lemons would come on.
Back on planet earth it doesnt matter anymore anyway. The government owns banks, autocompanies, sets pay for even non-government owned corporations and so on now. Any pesky little constitutional problems were just overlooked as they will be with health reform. The government is not going to have mandate anyway. It is going to implement a system of credits and subsidies and other goodies and penalties so that you will "choose" to have health insurance and they can always argue that you have the choice to not participate if you like pain so it is therefore not a mandate.
If conservatives and libertarians were on the ball, and they are not, they should actually be arguing that if a person opts out of health insurance or takes a higher deductible plan then they should be getting a cash credit back from the government so that they are getting the same level of benefit as those who are on the tit. Nevermind.
Pelosi Regarding Constitution, You Can't Be Serious
Linear Mode
