How is it constitutional to FORCE people to purchase health insurance?  

Silly me, I don't know what I was thinking. You're absolutely right. Nanci Pelosi and her crew clearly know what's best and we all know they are far wiser than the founders of our nation. I just hope my insolence isn't forwarded to flag@whitehouse.gov. I certainly don't want to be on any enemies list.

Obviously you're right. It's sad that the constitution seems to mean nothing to so many people. I just don't know what these people expect our government to follow if not the constitution.

Here is one link...

http://www.wnd.com/index....

*jumps up and down* OH OH! ME! ME! let me!!! Right here:
Amendment 10:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

*pats X on the back*

You beat me to it by 8 minutes.

sorry, lol...it was too easy...I couldn't resist, I was overcome with the compulsion.

X is right. The constitution says that anything not specifically written out as a federal power....is a state power. So sense healthcare is not specifically written in the constitution as a federal power....it is a state power.

The constitution is VERY clear on this. So unless they amend the constitution...than it is a violation of the constitution for the FEDERAL government to require everyone to have health care insurance. Now the states is another matter...they can legally and constitutionally make that law...because it is within their power to do so.
Why do you think so many states have said they will sue the federal government if they pass the mandate? Because it violates the constitution and violates state's rights. They will win in a court of law too.

Of course health care is not specifically written in the Constitution as a federal power; health care as we know it today didn't EXIST over two hundred years ago! As I've always said I have very mixed feelings about the mandate. IF they just said everyone has to buy health insurance out of their own pockets no matter what, with no help or subsidies from the government or no exemptions for lower income people I would be adamantly opposed to it but that's not the case. As long as we have people determined to keep health insurance in the private sector instead of going to a single-payer system it's impossible to change the status quo without some kind of mandate. The thing is everyone is already paying a "fine" or a "hidden tax" that's considerably higher than any "fine" that would be assessed on anyone not buying insurance under the new bill. We're all paying for those without insurance who use the ER as their doctor's office.

Annie

Then it is the states' responsibility to do the mandates...not the feds. Just like it is a STATE law about auto insurance...not a federal law. Each state is different. Some require it, some don't, each differs on how much. Why? Because it is a state power....so is this one. The feds are stepping on State's rights and the constitution BIG TIME with this mandate. Only the state's have this power.
If feds don't like that...well then amend the constitution...there is a process in place for that...but DON'T IGNORE OR VIOLATE THE CONSITUTION.

Lil - If your state mandated it, would you oppose the healthcare reform? Forgetting the federal portion, if your state upheld it, since this is the biggest fighting point you have, would you support what your state upheld?

That's not even REMOTELY similar to what the government is doing now. Did you READ the act? It applies ONLY to sailors and ship owners. If you choose not to own a ship or be a sailor, the mandate does not apply to you. This is not unlike the way auto insurance is mandated in most states. If you don't own or drive a car, you do not need to buy auto insurance.

Aside from that the "Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen" was justified under Article III Section 2 of the US Constitution.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw...

Either way it's not forcing anyone to do anything since nobody was forced to be a sailor or ship-owner.

We'll just see how this plays out in court.

I am just curious. I was watching a video earlier about a newborn baby being diagnosed with what the parent's insurance company considered a "preexisting condition", and the insurance company is waiting for the law to be fully enacted, and denied the coverage to the brand new newborn baby, and said they will react within the time frame the bill requires.

So, now, I know not everyone chooses to buy a car or a ship. But, this couple did choose to have a baby, and they had insurance. Their insurance is playing a delaying game.

How often can you play the choice game, really?

Are we supposed to tell them, "Sorry - you shouldn't have chosen to have a baby."

I do have a correction as to this newborn baby - the parents did not have insurance.

But, it is a very real example in general, in which children are considered to have preexisting conditions. We can't go around telling their parents they should not have chosen to have children.

Frankly their parents weren't very smart to have a child without purchasing insurance. The mother's insurance covers the child for the first 30 days in most states if not more. I'm curious as to how she could even afford the hospital bills without insurance.

Also note that the child did recieve the care necessary to live so abscence of insurance didn't cause this child to die as you have often implied it would. Either way, this would be better discussed in the thread you started as it has nothing to do with the constitutionality of forcing people to buy health insurance. I will comment in that thread after I have read the complete story.

Now the parents may get to spend tens of thousands of dollars.

But, in cases where parents do have insurance, there is no excuse for a newborn or a child being denied coverage.