Health care mandate is unconstitutional

I don’t know how any sane American cannot come to the conclusion that Barack Obama’s health care plan is 100 percent unconstitutional. Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance? Answer: nowhere. The same can be said about forcing Americans to participate in a retirement plan, a.k.a. Social Security. The Constitution specifically spells out the powers of the federal government in no uncertain terms and health care isn’t mentioned anywhere.

I guess many people don’t realize it — or, more likely, they just don’t care — that when the government gives them something, then they are taking from someone else. It’s really no different than if I were to steal someone’s property, then turn around and donate that stolen property to a charitable cause. The people on the receiving end of my charitable “donation” might really appreciate it and need it, but what right do I have to take someone else’s property that doesn’t belong to me?

The health care plan is no different. It must be paid for by someone because nothing in life is free. Someone always pays. And how will the health care plan be paid for? By “creating jobs” and hiring more federal employees to implement it. And who will pay their salaries? We will, through higer taxes, more unconstitutional money-printing/inflation, or both. Big government just keeps getting bigger at our expense.

Thanks, Barack Obama, for all the “hope and change.”




waltspecht 3 years, 8 months ago

Next they will require you to buy a Chevy Volt to save gas and reduce foreign oil dependance. Then they will require you to keep your thermostat at 82 in the Heat, and 65 in the cold. You will all have to only opperate your vehicle two days per week to keep down conggestion and polution while forcing people onto public transit. If the health care insurance is legit, so are all these and any other stupid idea that comes along.


Shinedownfan 3 years, 8 months ago

Cost of ownership evaluation of a Chevy 'Volt'

Eric Bolling (Fox Business Channel's Follow the Money) test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors.

For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine. Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9 gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles. It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.

According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.

The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so I looked up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh.

16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.

$18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery.

Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine only that gets 32 mpg.

$3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile.

The gasoline powered car cost about $15,000 while the Volt costs $46,000.

So you pay 3 times as much for a car that costs more than 7 times as much to run and takes 3 times as long to drive across country.

Doesn't sound like much of a bargain, does it?


J.D._Sumner 3 years, 8 months ago

Ask any constitutional expert and they'll tell you that the Constitution was written with what is commonly referred to in academic circles as "majestic vagueness." That's why we have a court system that interprets the constitution when conflicting ideas arise.

Not to be controversial, but the word "abortion" doesn't appear in the constitution either. But there does exist language that could, emphasis on could, lend one to believe that the forefathers would agree with certain beliefs on preventing it. Then there is often the Tea-party line that the forefathers believed in a limited federal government. If that's the case, then the feds shouldn't tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body.

See how things can get muddied here?

Matters of law are rarely cut-and-dry. There's always room for logical arguments on both sides of every issue.

I will say that common sense is often the first casualty when a controversial issue comes along.

I mean really, do people seriously believe that the president or any member of Congress actually wants to do the country in? What's the point? They can make a whole lot more money and gain a whole lot more power just keeping things the way they are.

Anyway, I digress. Bottom line is, most of the laws that are on the books today and that have stood up to supreme court scrutiny, aren't "specifically mentioned, in uncertain terms" in the constitution.


whodat 3 years, 8 months ago

A lot of those "not-me, I don't need no stinking insurance!" don't even realize that hospitals charge them MORE than people who do have insurance. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-1362808.html


by whodat


QUIK 3 years, 7 months ago

Mr Summer, has a good point. The all knowing writers of the constitution never could see or understand what is happening into today's world. Others believe 'the paper' to be perfect and pure while others think it should be changed in many ways. Some believe if court reject the mandate everything is good about the court but if they don't reverse the abortion ruling, then the court needs new judges. There is only one group that NEVER really complaints outwardly and that is the rich (let the pawns fight among themselves).


Sign in to comment