The Constitution vs the health care bill

Synopsis:

All the talk is about having to pay a tax if you do not buy a government specified insurance plan, that it is unconstitutional. The danger everyone needs to realize is that you are being forced to buy and USE the insurance. This would set the precedent that government can force you to buy and USE whatever the government legislates.


Let's first get rid of some minor arguments.

One argument for the mandatory health care tax:

"It is mandatory that everyone have auto insurance."

No, it isn't.

If you only have a bicycle, you don't buy auto insurance.

You can go into any car dealership (that is still in business) and, with cash, you can buy a car. If you intend to use the car on public roads, then you are required to have insurance.

If you intend to use a car for show and never drive it, for example, an original Bumblebee Camero used in the filming of the Transformer movies, do you need auto insurance or would you want a special policy tailored just for you?

Another argument used to justify taxing our lives:

"Uninsured people might get sick or hurt and then use emergency services they haven't paid for."

1. Yes, and, if they live, they will later get a job and pay for insurance they may not use for the rest of their lives. If they don't get a job, they get to make payments to the hospital.

This is a risk insurance companies will have to take, but then, they are experienced in that.

2. Since we all might get sick or hurt and the government mandates we be covered, we must have insurance that will certainly pay for the maximum expected costs.

Everyone should be required to buy a multi-million dollar insurance package.

3. This is a tax on the individual. The family is not relevant.

All children, including orphans and abandoned children, should get a job. Failure to pay is a trip to a working reform school.

Because the penalty is a tax, child labor laws do not apply.

4. One more argument against: We give billions in aid to other countries ...

(Intermission)

We now need to introduce this "imaginary" situation.

Suppose someone gets hurt enough to go to the hospital. Suppose also that they are unhappy. They had to buy a government mandated insurance policy. Having to increase their student loan to pay for the extra semester, they're told the higher interest rate payment is to pay back China for the principle and most of the rest has nothing to do with education. This person goes to the hospital and decides not to use the insurance - they declare themselves a John Doe.

The government mandated a tax if you do not buy insurance. Is there no tax on not using the insurance?

The insurance was paid for, commerce was achieved. Do the government overlords care if the insurance is used?

If we all are supposed to have insurance and some don't, will the hospital turn away those without?

To keep this situation from happening, a couple of additional items will get legislated:

1: Identification will have to be absolutely obtainable. Personal choice must give way to social needs. Fingerprinting, an ID chip under the skin, or some other method will have to be implemented on all citizens.

2: Hospitals will be required to turn away people without insurance.

We'll see how long it takes liberals to work on both of these.

The point of this discussion: the intent of the mandated tax is that you must purchase and USE health insurance.

(Intermission)

And now, the main event: why the health care bill is unconstitutional.

For this we bring out the words of our Constitution:

"Section 8 - Powers of Congress"

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

If there is commerce, then congress can regulate it.

Democrats have forced a law that binds us to the purchase and USE of a product that doesn't exist.

We will be taxed if we do not purchase a government-specified insurance plan, a plan does not yet exist. Democrats have passed a law that requires us to buy something we will not see for years.

If declared to be constitutional, promoting the general welfare, here are a few other items. They don't exist but will be good for the country, thus you will be taxed if you disobey:

You will purchase and wear a 3d virtual reality helmet that displays
michael moore videos and al gore speeches in a continuous loop.
Social conscience is good for you and the country.

You will purchase and have put under your children's skin a chip that will
provide a shock whenever the child speaks a profanity.

The success of the child-chip (over 75% against) inspires another law in which you purchase and have put under your skin a similar chip. A newly discovered feature is that this chip transmits a signal should you speak a word from a programmable list.

The idea of such things, and the idea of paying for them until they exist, screams that this is against the Constitutional acknowledgement of our right to Life, Liberty, and our Pursuit of Happiness.

FORCING THE PURCHASE OF SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST IS AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE COMMERCE.

FORCING US TO PURCHASE AND USE SOMETHING THAT WILL BE DEFINED AT THE FUTURE WHIM OF GOVERNMENT IS OPPRESSION.

CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE AN INDIVIDUAL TO CREATE COMMERCE.

CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAX AN INDIVIDUAL UNLESS THE INDIVIDUAL CREATES COMMERCE.


What about items that do exist?

If the mandated tax in the health care bill is declared constitutional, congress can require us to purchase anything they choose. What may be worse is that congress can requires us to USE whatever they choose. They think that making it a tax issue can nullify our right to Life, Liberty, and our Pursuit of Happiness.

Life:
You must purchase and USE pregnancy prevention items.

Liberty:
You must purchase and use mileage regulators in all cars.

The Pursuit of Happiness:
You must purchase and use specified aptitude tests to determine the schools the government=issued student loan will allow on your application.


Congress does not have any right to require me to purchase and use any item just because Congress wants it to happen.

Congress does not have any right to require me to purchase and use a GM car.

Congress does not have any right to require my wife to purchase and use lead-contaminated items from China.


FORCING THE PURCHASE OF AN EXISTING ITEM IS AN ATTEMPT TO INITIATE COMMERCE.

FORCING US TO PURCHASE AND USE AN ITEM BECAUSE GOVERNMENT DESIRES IT IS OPPRESSION.

CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE AN INDIVIDUAL TO INITIATE COMMERCE.

CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAX AN INDIVIDUAL UNLESS THE INDIVIDUAL INITIATES COMMERCE.


Congress does not have the right to tax me unless I purchase and drink English tea.

(Last Intermission)

And if you still need more ...


A government specified health plan should cost the same for everyone.

If someone pays significantly more than another for a government mandated requirement, just because of a 30 year difference in age, that is is age discrimination.


Even more:

"Section 9 - Limits on Congress"

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

From an online definition:

"Attainder
attainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime.
[< OFr. attaindre, to convict] Source: AHD"

"In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment)."

A newly born child not covered by health insurance must pay a tax. The parents are responsible for having the money. Any individual that does not pay the tax is subject to a fine and/or imprisonment.

For everyone in the country this means our fundamental needs of food, clothing, and shelter have been legislated to be secondary. Before anything else, money must be used to buy insurance, or pay the tax, or pay the fine.

This does not promote the welfare of the country, but it will put some on welfare..

For those who have little money, it is the food, the clothing, the decent place to live that will be sacrificed because of the health care bill. The welfare of the family is degraded; the "Blessings of Liberty" are sucked away by the IRS.

I'm reminded of farmers, in lands across the ocean, in a time not long ago, who had to turn over the bulk of their crop to pay the government tax, leaving little to use for sale or feed their families.