Government run health care: Constitutional ?

It is NOT constitutional. We have gotten away from the constitution for the last 40 yrs. The three houses of evil are suppose to self check on the constitution, however, they haven't read it for years. After it becomes law it will go to court, and then we have to hope for a real constitutional answer from judges. Boy, what a mess.

Ummh you should read a little. There is no government run health care. You go buy private insurance. That is it. It is not unconstitutional. The U.S. government has the power to regulate anything that effects interstate commerce. Medical insurance is used across state lines. Not buying insurance affects the price of those insurance policies used across State lines. The U.S government fines people for not buying life jackets, fire extinguishers and flares before taking passengers on boats even if they are not commercial boats. They can stop us anywhere world wide and fine us because we are American flagged. So it is not without precedent that we are forced to buy a commercial product. I live in the Florida Keys where many of us live on boats and islands that have no bridges to them. We have to have boats to live here.

In 1935 the congress passed the Social Security Act. Two years later the supreme court ruled that congress did not have the authority to enact a mandatory retirement plan. So SS was converted to what can fairly be called a tax and welfare scheme.

If congress didn't have the authority to enact a mandatory retirement plan, where does it get the authority to enact a mandatory health care plan?

The Preamble to the Constitution imposes upon the government and obligation to "Promote the General Welfare." How does a health care plan that requires me to pay my own health care premiums and the government (that's US taxpayers) to pay yours as well?

Does it really matter to you if someone dies of starvation because they can't afford to buy food or if they die from a disease because they can't afford to buy their prescribed medications? A hundred years from now, who's going to even know that most of us lived or died?

I really don't get the unconstitutional argument, the government runs many programs never dreamed of by our forefathers, like NASA and the space program for instance, Social Security and Medicare, for another, now I know some people would like to see and end to that too, but most don't want that.

I just don't see it as a constitutional issue and its a stretch to try and make it one.

There is no constitutionally guaranteed "right" to health care. It is NOT a right ... it is privilege ... and if you don't know the difference between the two, please do some research before whining about "free" health care, which by definition can never be free.

So here's the thing ... you can NOT receive health care unless some individual (a doctor, nurse, practitioner, etc.) agrees to give you some of their time ... that is their LIFE to you. Now they may be willing to do that for compensation, but nobody has a "right" to take or seize their time ... that is their LIFE, by doing so you are depriving them of their constitutionally guaranteed right to life and property. So ... by definition ... government run health care is unconstitutional.

BUT ... that hasn't stopped Obama and his minions from doing other unconstitutional things (BOHICA), so no telling what may happen.

God save the Republic!

Yes Joe, the war in Iraq was perfectly legal and was properly engaged in. Congress approved the war.

Is government run health care constitutional? I would need to have more information to determine that. However, when has anything run by the government worked properly? Never! If you want something to fail miserably in this country, just let the Federal Government run it. They will drive it into the ground and we will be stuck with health insurance that doesn't work.

That is correct, not constitutional.(redistribution of wealth, and propbaly to illegal immigrants)

Also Medicare/caid is not constitutional (redistribution of wealth)

Social security/not constitutional in its current form (okay originally, fund set up by government, that was supposed to be seperate from government, that was designed for people who paid into the system got money from the system.

See what has happened, a system that was brought forth as good for the people, now they believe that it is constitutional. People need to read the constitution.

Killing soldiers for a legacy: Constitutional?

I've got to think there is an argument for saying that healthcare is covered under the right to life. I've also got to think killing soldiers for a lie designed to augment one's legacy is not covered under that same right to life.

Clean up your own house first, before attacking one trying to help Americans instead of killing Iraqis.

FIRST OF ALL, THERE WILL BE NO NATIONALIZATION OF HEALTH CARE!

[I go to the Dallas VA Medical Center and the government doesn’t even run THAT!]

There is NO "OBAMA CARE" The plan[s] are being built by congress.

The ONLY THING THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO DO IS ADD AN OPTION:

NON-PROFIT INSURANCE FOR THE POOR & UNEMPLOYED

There are 45 million Americans who have NO health care options except Emergency Rooms!

The USA is 37TH in HEALTH CARE!

These are NOT my idea of the best!

THE WORST POSSIBLE CHOICE IS TO DO NOTHING!

Health care costs are:

Increasing 2-3 times faster than wages

Currently eating up 18% of our money

AND, WILL DESTROY OUR ECONOMY UNLESS WE FIX IT!

Want to know WHO DOESN’T want ANY CHANGE?

THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!

THEY EAT 40% OF EVERY HEALTH CARE DOLLAR.

For what we are already paying, WE COULD INSURE EVERY MAN, WOMAN & CHILD IN AMERICA WITH ZERO DEDUCTIBLE, ZERO COPAY COVERAGE!

OK, SO HOW WILL THEY PAY FOR IT?

>DRUG DISCOUNTS

>ELIMINATING WASTE

>LOCKING UP PEOPLE WHO COMMIT FRAUD

>CONCENTRATING ON PREVENTATIVE CARE

[Currently, the only option for the poor is the E.R. at county hospitals and that’s THE MOST EXPENSIVE CARE THERE IS!]

To find the truth, http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

To report the lies, http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/contact

I think it would be arguing a 1937 case and its worth arguing. Thing is, libs could lose the whole enchilada (The New Deal). I think they should rewrite and look for a less restrictive fix.