"no doubt"?

I wonder if he wrote that with a straight face?

Whoever wrote the OP article has obviously not read the Federalist papers or the correspondence of the authors of the Constitution. The article is loaded with misinformation and outright lies.
For example: "Congress has broad power to regulate the national economy
A provision of the Constitution known as the “commerce clause” gives Congress power to “regulate commerce … among the several states.” And there is a long line of Supreme Court decisions holding that Congress has broad power to enact laws that substantially affect prices, marketplaces, or other economic transactions. Because health care comprises approximately 17 percent of the national economy, it is impossible to argue that a bill regulating the national health care market does not fit within Congress’s power to regulate commerce."

This is a total misunderstanding of the interstate commerce clause. The word "regulate" in that clause means "to make regular", not to set arbitrary rules upon. Outside of this clause, the only other power congress has over commerce is tariffs and embargoes. (but I suppose the author didn't want to let facts get in the way of an amusing story)

What is "OP"?

I admit that I haven't (and probably won't) read the Federalist Papers. I like to rely on authoritative sources like Findlaw, rather than on layman interpretations of things like th Federalist Papers. From that source , It's a long passage. This is just the first paragraph. I think the word "plenary" is very much to the point.

The Federalist Papers were written FOR the laymen....They were arguments written and published in newspapers by a small group of founding fathers to explain the intent of the Constitution, and to voice disagreement against what certain other founding fathers were trying to enact. Even the authors had disagreements amongst themselves, and so eventually they had a falling out with each other. Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, and one of the primary scribes, wrote more of the Federalist Papers than anyone else. Sometimes he was even the mouthpiece for John Jay (although they had several disagreements themselves).

The Constitution was intended towards a small Federal government, but it left room for adaptation. In the 20th century, due corruption which began in the 1870s period of Reconstruction, the Feds have continued to expand their powers beyond the Constitution due to pressure from industrialists and other wealthy lobbyists. The Constitution has never been modified to allow these powers. Instead, we have a bunch of lawyers arguing loopholes and interpretations, putting a "spin" on the Constitution, rather than adhering to the spirit in which the top law of the land was written. It has to stop. The Constitution was meant for ALL to understand, not just a group of lawyers and politicians. That was the intent of the founding fathers.

OP = Original Post (or Poster)

Oh, and the Chief Justice needs to look up the definition of the word "regulate" instead of creating his own definition. When lawyers don't have a leg to stand on, they debate semantics by giving a loose interpretation of a term rather than adhering to the accepted definition. As such, it leads to messy, drawn-out debates since one side is doing nothing more than trying to confuse the issue just to win. Been there, done that. It's called Parliamentary Debate which isn't based on facts but rather sheer argument and persuasion without using facts.

Well, I looked up the definition.Seems pretty straightforward to me.I think that's about when the courts decided that the "general welfare" clause actually had meaning. Up to that point, the issue was so radioactive that it was rarely invoked. (I am not willing to argue the "general welfare" clause. It is an eternal argument). Suffice to say that the founding fathers were not in any sense united on how limited the Fed was supposed to be. The issue was not whether government was large or not. It was how much power belonged to the Fed, as opposed to the States. That is important, because to limit the size and power of the Federal Government is not to limit the size and power of Government. It simply leaves a void for State Governments to fill. Over time, they will fill the void, and the union will be a cacophony of incompatible jurisdictions. This is my opinion.

Even if I wanted to concede this point (which I don't), how does this keep insurance companies from inflating both doctor's bills and premiums? Remember, due to an agreement with the insurance companies, hospitals and doctor's rates were doubled to give the appearance that insurance was receiving a break on the rate. So, when you pay out of pocket, you are actually paying double the actual cost, hence steering more people toward buying health insurance. That means my physical exam should cost me $100 instead of $200 (this was 10 years ago, but it was 4x the previous charge). I can deal with a doubling of cost, but quadruple? And to find out that insurance is responsible for the second doubling???

So, instead I am going to be forced to buy insurance which is exactly what the industry wants, all because my income is above a certain threshold despite being lower middle class??? I already pay about $6000 per year in taxes, and I don't own a home and my income is $10,000/year less than the average and is half the cost of living for the area. I want to move, plan to move, but due to ailing family, I cannot do so at the moment. But, my earnings are typically more than the allowances in the Health Care Act....so now I have to pay more? There's a reason why I don't buy health insurance. But if prices weren't falsely inflated, I could afford to go to the doctor more often, paying out of my own pocket.

Even when I worked for an employer who offered health insurance, I didn't want it. I wanted the money to build a nest egg instead. However, that was not an option due to the agreement between my employer and the insurance provider: we all had to pay for it in a non-unionized shop according to the insurance contract. When are people going to realize that insurance companies are NOT out to help us? They are in it to make money. Large insurance companies rake in $200,000/year per employee! The average employee is lucky if he takes home 1/4 of that. Insurance is a big scam that is becoming legalized extortion. It's time we stopped making excuses for them, and faced the facts whether you want Health Care reform or not.

I would think this would be a strong argument why we should not have the Insurance Industry running the health care show. Congress gave the health care system to the insurance industry in order to curb the growth of health care costs. 'We should let business control health care because they really know how to control costs'. IT WORKED. The insurance companies have done a masterful job of keeping the cost of actual health care low. HOWEVER, like any business, these companies gauged how much the public had already shown that it is willing to pay. Charging what the market will bear, they simply kept the difference for themselves.

My own opinion is that nothing that congress has done has addressed the real causes of the rise in health care costs. Three causes that I can think about are 1) the effort of the AMA to keep the supply/demand ratio for providers low and 2) Congress' ridiculous generosity in granting excessive patent protect to the pharmaceutical companies and 3) the move from not-for-profit hospitals to for-profit hospitals. I think that the first element will improve with time. The second, that would be all up to Congress. There are certainly others that I haven't thought of.

These are my opinions.

Nope it is a fine not a tax credit. If you are not working and thus don't have an income you would still be responsible for the fine. If your wages are so low that you wouldn't pay taxes you are still responsible for the fine, etc. It is forcing a purchase thus it is unconstitutional.

That's not what this source says.

So how would a vote in the supreme court go>>>don't forget Obama's public scolding of the justices in his 1st state of the union speech>>>and all the democrats applauding Obama's remarks and staring at the justices>>>for upholding the 1st amendment>>>more importantly, does it matter how they rule>>>the next real vote will not come until 2012...Americans r not going to accept that they must purchase health insurance because of a "commerce clause">>>the health care bill is doa>>>one way or another if the last election proves anything it proves that>>>and the next one will too.

still its not a credit. I can chose to rent an apartment and my taxes are not "more". I just get a credit if I buy a house but that costs me more money in the long run. This is a fine for not buying something.

You're arguing with Judge Scalia, a Supreme Court Justice, and legal experts.



You are saying you know the law better?

This is "authoritative"? Interesting, because I've never seen a Constitutional law book or article (or even a primary source such as the Federalist papers or correspondence of the authors). that agrees with this rubbish. If you try to show this to anyone who specializes in Constitutional law, you'll be laughed at.

The real cause for increased medical cost are agreed on by both the medical Professionals and Insurance Companies.

The rise is due to the system.
Paying for the cure and expensive ER costs vs the cheaper preventative medicine because too many Americans wait until the last minute to go to the doctor.
Why?
Because too many don't have Insurance. Either by their own stupidity or because they really can't afford it.
Therefore they wait until their illness has progressed to the point
they can no longer put off treatment.
Then they seek the cure and go to the ER for it because a Public hospital can not refuse them treatment.
Almost always the payment is picked up by the Gov, via tax-payers, and increased insurance premiums to those with insurance.

This is where the commerce clause becomes very relevant and makes a penalty (tax penalty) constitutionally legal.

There are many people, construction workers and the self employed, who can afford health insurance but refuse because they don't need it when they are healthy. Then when they do they are unprepared. Sometimes the illness or injury is so severe they are never able to work again, or at least not for months and months. At which point not only did they receive the most expensive medical care, cure vs preventative, but they are no longer able to pay the bill. Wham bam, the tax-payer pays it and insurance premiums for the prepared increase.

These types of uninsured workers are the majority of the complainers here. They can afford insurance, but like a home owner with a leaky roof, they don't see the need to fix the roof while it isn't raining, and when it is raining they can't fix it because it's raining. They wish to free load through life on everyone Else's dollar.
I know this because I was in the construction industry for years and I know many such people.

Besides, common sense will tell you that those who can't afford traditional Health Insurance, aren't complaining that now they can.

Quit your free loading on my back.

argue away here but I know for certain that this bill will not get past the supreme court and will be the end of Obama! He is a failed president and that's a fact jack! The country will move further right and in 2012 things will be so bad economically the right will win another landmark victory! Let's hope they do as promised this time and start making large scale cuts! Americans don't want big brother bigger and they are demanding policies written that protect the working man. I predict the left has moved so far left they no longer represent the working class and the working person has finally figured this out! They are now the party of the welfare receipient or union thug! They no longer relate with the working class!

Can I make a record of that?

So, what my mother, working in the health care industry, learned about one of the major rises in cost is to be tossed out the window, especially when she learned this while at work and had doctors confirm this was indeed the case???

I wouldn't expect to see Findlaw mentioned on many right wing websites.Everybody has their opinions, even doctors and other health care workers. Faux News is everywhere. Even health care workers fail to acknowledge the 30% overhead paid on every health care dollar, just for profits for an industry that dictates which providers you are allowed to see.The $95 is obviously not a credit. A credit would have money coming BACK to the taxpayer. The credit would be the exemption, the provision that allows someone to avoid the payment, just like any other tax credit. Just like the Child Tax Credit. Have a baby and you get out of having to pay a certain amount of taxes (or "fine", or whatever you want to call it). Be poor, and you get out of having to pay this "fine".that is NOT a fact, Jill. It is an opinion. You are entitled to it.It depends almost entirely of Kennedy. He is the swing vote. The activist right wingers are pretty predictable, while the left-leaners have been pretty much the voice of reason. Kennedy is a switch-hitter.You might be surprised.And this is why, when you have a serious medical event, you will have one of two choices. You will pay the direct, up-front cost to pay the fees of a provider, or you will go to the emergency room, where all the rest of us who have insurance will pay for you. Your only other option is to hope that this serious medical event does not happen before you become eligible for Medicare of Medicaid.

[Here's a testimonial that may or may not impress you.I'm not a lawyer and neither are you. I prefer to go to the reference material that the lawyers go to. The law is SUPPOSED to be based on case precedent. This is why "originalists" have to be considered activist. This is why Roberts has to have been considered untruthful when he promised to follow precedent in his confirmation hearings before Congress. This is why Findlaw has to be considered more authoritative than the opinion of a layman who believes he understands the Federalist Papers better than 235 years worth of Supreme Court decisions. You are entitled to your opinion. I just don't think it's a very good one.