OK health-care mandate

  • Follow Letters

Where is it written in the Constitution, in what section or clause is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battle in any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it?

– Daniel Webster

The argument is before the Supreme Court that the individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. If this is so, was not the military draft also unconstitutional? And if it was – to the parents and families of those taken by the government into the various branches of military service, and lost in battle or otherwise – does the government not owe a debt greater than it can ever pay?

We allowed the draft, did we not, and the loss of lives it brought? About 50,000 were lost in Vietnam. How many of those did not want to go, but were taken?

Was the Vietnam War in the interest of national security? Those who would make that argument go the way of absurdity.

We should allow the health-insurance mandate. It is far less demanding of us. It will not take lives as did the draft, but is for the good of us all.

J.M. Bower

North Augusta, S.C.

Comments (23) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Iwannakno
1533
Points
Iwannakno 02/19/12 - 11:13 pm
0
0
how do you know it is good
Unpublished

how do you know it is good for us? Nobody knows everything in it...transparency anyone?

allhans
24520
Points
allhans 02/20/12 - 04:25 am
0
0
The draft, huh? What a

The draft, huh? What a comparison.

carcraft
27884
Points
carcraft 02/20/12 - 05:39 am
0
0
I do believe there is

I do believe there is something in the Constitution about "raising an army". I don't see anything about raising a birth control measure of for that matter allowing the president to order companies to give away products like birth control. But this is Obama so anything is possible..

mable8
2
Points
mable8 02/20/12 - 06:25 am
0
0
JM Bower: Apparently you

JM Bower: Apparently you didn't pay attention in your history classes. The US Constitution does provide for raising an army; it also provides for a militia. It does NOT provide for government health care and it does NOT provide for the executive branch to make the determnation as to who lives or dies---which obamacare does. It's already being done; there is a list that 'empanelled doctors' must use to determine whether or not one receives the health care plan one's physician submits for approval. These arbitrary decisions cannot be appealed. A mentally retarded child has already been denied a kidney transplant due to the sole reason of her impaired mental capacity. If you think this is reasonable, then I must say you are sorely lacking in both compassion and intelligence. Quite frankly, the so-called obama health care fiasco is unconstitutional and should have never been passed as a law and our illustrious legislators who didn't even bother to read it over-reached their authority by ignoring the will of the people. They seem to have forgotten that they work for us; we do not work for them.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 02/20/12 - 08:24 am
0
0
It's this kind of confused

It's this kind of confused thinking that gets us into problems. Sounds like an obamite apologist grasping at constitutional straws that really aren't there. But I give points for innovation: manipulating the Constitution to justify ignoring the Constitution is an interesting ploy.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 02/20/12 - 08:57 am
0
0
Stephen Colbert said this:

Stephen Colbert said this: ""Yes, the government cannot force you to buy things. It can only tax you, draft you, seize and sell your property, arrest you, incarcerate you and execute you."

"But it cannot tell you to buy you insurance. Only a gecko can do that."

Riverman1
90617
Points
Riverman1 02/20/12 - 09:02 am
0
0
Does he mean a gecko is in

Does he mean a gecko is in the White House?

southernguy08
532
Points
southernguy08 02/20/12 - 09:09 am
0
0
Already campaigning for Obama
Unpublished

Already campaigning for Obama 2012, J.M.?

Jane18
12332
Points
Jane18 02/20/12 - 09:18 am
0
0
Thank you Mable8 for setting

Thank you Mable8 for setting J.M. straight!

dichotomy
36279
Points
dichotomy 02/20/12 - 09:58 am
0
0
It is just unfathomable to me

It is just unfathomable to me that any American would submit to a government mandate, any government mandate, much less a mandate to buy a product. The government has progressively overstepped it's constitutional authority for years. It has crept into our lives in almost every aspect, little by little, using the excuses of "commerce" and "the common good". I see nothing good about it. Since we have become a welfare enabling nanny state we have been on a steady march toward collapse, and damned if we didn't finally get there. The only thing "common" the government has accomplished is that we are all commonly in debt, man, woman, and child, about $56,000. If you aggregate that by WORKING, taxPAYING families and discount the non-working families and the 48% that don't pay taxes, that is closer to $500,000 per WORKING, taxPAYING family.

No Mr. Bower, I refuse to accept the government mandating anything to me from now on. They have proven themselves to be consistently wrong. I consider myself obligated to resist their rules, regulations, taxes, and "guidelines" with the same fervor that drove our ancestors to resist the oppressive, overreaching, over taxing government that once drove us all to call for freedom FROM government. I am so mad at our government that I even resist some of the things that I basically agree with but resent it being mandated. We have lost our way, our sense of personal responsibility, our independence. Half of the country cries out to be supported by the other half. We actually have the shameful discussion of wanting to TAKE half of what some people freely EARN in the open marketplace because some of us are too stupid or too lazy to go out and earn it ourselves. We have been told that it is a moral imperative that we financially support failure and laziness. I don't think so and I will use every tool, every opportunity to resist feeding the monster my money and being controlled by it's lifestyle rules and regulations.

So freedom fighters, be "creative" when filing your taxes, eat more greasy cheeseburgers, use more salt and sugar, fill you children's lunch boxes with animal crackers, buy your cigarettes from bootleggers, take off your catalytic converters, disable your seat belt alarms, refuse to buy gas with ethanol, and vote against ALL SPLOSTS. Basically, my rule of thumb with every decision I make every day is "whatever the government wants me to do.....do the opposite".

crkgrdn
2287
Points
crkgrdn 02/20/12 - 10:12 am
0
0
As General Washington bade

As General Washington bade farewill to his troops in 1783, he wrote, "At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a nation, and if their citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be entirely their own."

We are on a very slippery slope, one from which may never recover.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are very short documents. Those documents are packed with the wisdom f the ages.

Mr. Bower and others who agree with him should take time to read them. And, those that do not agree with Mr. Bower should also take time to read these documents, because that will be able to present their case more powerfully.

What is this all about? What it's all about is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 02/20/12 - 11:34 am
0
0
I wonder what the Founding

I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of a Health Insurance Mandate.

impossible
124
Points
impossible 02/20/12 - 10:42 am
0
0
Well-said Mabel8 and
Unpublished

Well-said Mabel8 and Dichotomy. We must all pray that a sufficient number of well-read intelligent Americans resist the temptation to despair and giving up on voting. Difficult though it is, we can even overcome the rampant voter fraud practiced by the Democrats with the help of the motor-voter law and such.

I strongly urge the Bishops, politicians uninfected with Obamamania and all others of good will not to limit the argument against such totalitarian violations to an offense against any one segment or religion but to vigorously condemn them as offensive Communist-type attacks on the liberty of every person.

Neither the entire government nor any rogue President, branch, Czar or Secretary has any legal or moral right to issue laws, edicts, regulations or executive orders violating our constitution or taking away our God-given rights.

Paragraph #1901 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church nails the Obama dictatorship: “Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed.”

Bruno
780
Points
Bruno 02/20/12 - 10:44 am
0
0
As has been pointed out, Mr.

As has been pointed out, Mr. Bower needs to hit the history books again. Bower's attempt to say that the draft and the healthcare mandate are analogous is ridiculously ill-informed and misguided.

skeptic griggsy
39
Points
skeptic griggsy 02/20/12 - 12:11 pm
0
0
Rant and -weep- the
Unpublished

Rant and -weep- the Affordable Health Act remains until Medicare for all ensues.

skeptic griggsy
39
Points
skeptic griggsy 02/20/12 - 12:47 pm
0
0
Y'all fret over no
Unpublished

Y'all fret over no inchoate,incipient totalitarianism! This administration is following our Constitution which in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments notes our implicit rights. The misinformed misinform themselves by means of Limbaugh and Fix [ Faux] News.
Early on the Supreme Court gave the yes to the mandate for sailors to have to buy naval insurance.History says no to the willingly misinformed!
The slipppery slope is a logical fallacy. We stop when we see a stop sign on the road of life.This happens all the time,yet we try to stop with appropriate laws and revise them at times. When I start eating, my stomach will give me a stop sign- no slippery slope! The bank bail-out did not lead to socialization of the means of industry or of the banking system itself.
Evaluate arguments on their own terms instead of using weasel words. Being intellectually otiose does not make for sound judgment.
Pres. Barack Obama is a constitutional lawyer who knows more about the Constitution that many are too otiose to read!
Curse us liberals and weep.

carcraft
27884
Points
carcraft 02/20/12 - 12:48 pm
0
0
I had a run in with the EPA.

I had a run in with the EPA. These government regulators are completely out of hand. Richmand county ordered me to bring some property into compliance because one of my neighbors complained about "weeds" on my property. I had allowed the land boardering the road to exceed the limits . I had to clear all my property lines. Twenty feet back on road way and 10 feet on the other property lines. My neighbor then reported me to the EPA because I had disturbed the soil. I walked the porperty lines with the EPA inspector and he said every thing was OK. Next thing I know I got a letter from the EPA saying that I was in violation of soil errosion control and needed to put up a silt fence and plant a grass cover over the disturbed soil. I talked to the developers of the property and they said do it. If you fight the EPA you have a special hearing in the Atlanta EPA court and you never win. These government inspectors will lie to your face and they have all the integrity of an Obama promise!

skeptic griggsy
39
Points
skeptic griggsy 02/20/12 - 12:50 pm
0
0
carcraft, the law is the law!
Unpublished

carcraft, the law is the law! Give evidence of their lying.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 02/20/12 - 01:50 pm
0
0
"I wonder what the Founding

"I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of a Health Insurance Mandate." Since they passed one, it sure sounds like they'd be for it.

Wth July,
1798.CHAP. [94.] An act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen.
1
§ 1.
Be it enacted, Sfc.
That from and after the first day of September next, the master or ownerof every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of theUnited States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to thecollector a true account of the number of seamen that shall have been employed on board suchvessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States, and shall pay, to the saidcollector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed ; which sum he ishereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.§ 2. That from and after the first day of September next, no collector shall grant to any ship orvessel whose enrollment or license for carrying on the coasting trade has expired, a newenrollment or license, before the master of such ship or vessel shall first render a true account tothe collector, of the number of seamen, and the time they have severally been employed on boardsuch ship or vessel, during the continuance of the license which has so expired, and pay to suchcollector twenty cents per month for every month such seamen have been severally employed asaforesaid ; which sum the said master is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of suchseamen. And if any such master shall render a false account of the number of men, and the lengthof time they have severally been employed, as is herein required, he shall forfeit and pay onehundred dollars.§ 3. That it shall be the duty of the several collectors to make a quarterly return of the sumscollected by them, respectively, by virtue of this act, to the secretary of the treasury ; and thepresident of the United States is hereby authorized, out of the same, to provide for the temporaryrelief and maintenance of sick, or disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutionsnow established in the several ports of the United States, or in ports where no such institutionsexist, then in such other manner as he shall direct:
Provided,
that the moneys collected in anyone district, shall be expended within the same.
§
4. That if any surplus shall remain of the moneys to be collected by virtue of this act, afterdefraying the expense of such temporary relief and support, that the same, together with suchprivate donations as may be made for that purpose, (which the president is hereby authorized toreceive,) shall be invested in the stock of the United States, under the direction of the president;and when, in his opinion, a sufficient fund shall be accumulated, he is hereby authorized topurchase or receive cessions or donations of ground or buildings, in the name of the UnitedStates, and to cause buildings, when necessary, to be erected as hospitals for the accommodationof sick and disabled seamen.§ 5. That the president of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to nominate andappoint, in such ports of the United States as he may think proper, one or more persons, to becalled directors of the marine hospital of the United States, whose duty it shall be to direct theexpenditure of the fund assigned for their respective ports, according to the third section of thisact; to provide for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen, under such general
1
Curtis, George Tickner. A Treatise on the Rights and Duties of Merchant Seamen, According to the General Maritime Law, andthe Statutes of the United States. (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1841), 407-409
instructions as shall be given by the president of the United States for that purpose, and also,subject to the like general instructions, to direct and govern such hospitals, as the president maydirect to be built in the respective ports : and that the said directors shall hold their offices duringthe pleasure of the president, who is authorized to fill up all vacancies that may be occasioned bythe death or removal of any of the persons so to be appointed. And the said directors shall renderan account of the moneys received and expended by them, once in every quarter of a year, to thesecretary of the treasury, or such other person as the president shall direct; but no otherallowance or compensation shall be made to the said directors, except the payment of suchexpenses as they may incur in the actual discharge of the duties required by this act.

[Approved, July

16, 1798.]

Little Lamb
47972
Points
Little Lamb 02/20/12 - 01:52 pm
0
0
I feel your pain, carcraft.

I feel your pain, carcraft. But there are some fishy details in your story. First, you say you were confronted by Richmand (sic) County officials about the weeds. Likely these were employees of the Code Enforcement section. There are definitely ordinances about urban and suburban lawn upkeep. You have to keep the grass (or weeds) no higher than six inches. But if you are in rural areas of the county, those ordinances do not apply.

Now, here is where I am puzzled: It is the responsibility of Richmond County government to keep the right-of-way along roadsides free of excessive growth. If the Richmond County code enforcement officer told you the right of way needed policing, you could have said, “Well, would you call Richmond County Roads Department to get a clean-up crew out here and do it?” After all, it is their responsibility.

Anyway, when Code Enforcement told you to clean up the weeds, they did not mean to do land clearing. That is a whole other ball of wax. You should have just mowed the weeds – or perhaps burned them after getting a burn permit from the Georgia Forestry Commission or the Richmond County fire department.

I think it is suspicious that the EPA would come out on a small erosion complaint. Are you sure it was the EPA, or perhaps did the Code Enforcment officer just tell you about how cold and callous the EPA could be?

And as far as property lines that are not part of an easement of a roadway or other city utility, there are no ordinances or laws that say they have to be mowed or cleared.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 02/20/12 - 02:21 pm
0
0
Techfan, we need to

Techfan, we need to coordinate our posts through Soros, Alinsky, and our Vegetarian Overlords network. The point of my post was to catch the erroneously self-identified “Constitutionalists” in their own web. Their fealty to the Constitution is based on the sophomoric reading they gave that document in the 10th grade and they understand not true Constitutional Law or history of same:

“Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798”

Pleading from the States of Florida:

“The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.”

State of Florida, et al. vs. HHS

“It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.”

“Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.

Here’s how it happened.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-sociali...

Riverman1
90617
Points
Riverman1 02/20/12 - 02:24 pm
0
0
Well, let's see we've been

Well, let's see we've been paying into Medicare for about 50 years now. The seamen had to pay the government, too. But, I tell you what, everyone who is coming into the U.S. as seamen on vessels should pay into a government fund, all the rest of us...nope.

Riverman1
90617
Points
Riverman1 02/20/12 - 02:36 pm
0
0
Understand in 1798 farming

Understand in 1798 farming and other occupations were also dangerous, but Congress didn't pass laws saying they had to pay the government to provide for their medical care. They LIMITED it to seamen coming into the U.S. on ships that had visited other countries.

Little Lamb
47972
Points
Little Lamb 02/20/12 - 02:43 pm
0
0
It would also be interesting

It would also be interesting to know when that 1798 law was repealed. Or maybe it was overturned by the Supreme Court.

Riverman1
90617
Points
Riverman1 02/20/12 - 02:52 pm
0
0
I think it stayed in effect

I think it stayed in effect in some form until Reagan. Ha...imagine that.

Riverman1
90617
Points
Riverman1 02/20/12 - 03:01 pm
0
0
There is an analogy to the

There is an analogy to the present with that bill. This was all done under a Federalist President and Congress. This same Congress also passed the Alien and Sedition Acts that threw in jail newspaper editors and anyone who published "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or certain officials. It was enacted July 14, 1798, with an expiration date of March 3, 1801 (the day before Adams' presidential term was to end).

Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively in opposition to the Acts. But since they expired when Adams left office nothing was done. Jefferson used it against Adams to win the Presidency. This was before Marbury v. Madison and the principle of judicial review of unconstitutional acts.

lsmith
105
Points
lsmith 02/20/12 - 03:16 pm
0
0
Who vetted this obsurd
Unpublished

Who vetted this obsurd comparative letter? There are a ton of folks all for this mandate who're in for the shock of their life when they find their employer has dropped their workplace sponsored health insurance benefit as a result of increased cost and obligations of obamaycare. When they go into the private market and attempt to replace what they have only to find the premium is much higher, deductibles much higher, copays much higher and coverages less.
Crossing my fingers that intelligence prevails in the high court and the mandate is sent to it's tomb.

Truth Matters
7825
Points
Truth Matters 02/20/12 - 04:33 pm
0
0
This President should

This President should denounce the Affordable Care Act and sit back and watch how quickly Republicans will AGAIN support it. After all, it was their idea some years ago to require those without insurance pay for their care so the rest of us do not have to do so.

Case closed!

Sargebaby
4693
Points
Sargebaby 02/20/12 - 07:02 pm
0
0
I ain't buyin no stinkin

I ain't buyin no stinkin unconstitutional, Government mandated health insurance! So says ole Sarge!

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs