If Obamacare is upheld, what limits on Government will be left?

[Little-Acorn]

If Obamacare is upheld, I'd like to know what limits would be left, on government forcing us to buy ANYTHING.

What items or services could the govt NOT force us to buy?

Or would literally everything be on the table, and the only reason the government is not forcing us to buy X, is that they decided not to, for the time being? But might change their minds next week or next month?

Specifically, what items or services would government be FORBIDDEN to force us to buy?

[DngrMse]

None.

If the government decides, and enacts into law that you have to consume twelve grams of porcine shit per month...and pay a hefty fee for the privilege, then you will, or you'll be forced to pay a hefty penalty/tax/fine/contribution if you don't. Obama is wrapping his 'package' in the broadest, most liberal terms he can find in the tenth. If the SC does not put the brakes on this explosive expansion of federal power, then get used to the taste of federal dick.

[Toby-T]

If the mandate is upheld, liberty will breath her final gasping breath and the world's last best hope for freedom will have officially failed.

[Archaix]

Is giving up grandfathered status the same thing as small businesses being "forced to give up their current plans"?

Not necessarily, said experts we spoke with on both sides of the health care debate.

Timothy Jost, a health care law expert at Washington and Lee University School of Law, argues that small employers won’t be "forced" to give up their plans under the new law. They would have to change their plans themselves to lose their grandfathered status.

"If a small business (or individual, or large business) keeps its current plan, it is grandfathered, period," he said.

Eighty percent of small businesses may lose grandfathered status "simply because they change their plans so much that they are no longer the same plan," he said.

Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was a consultant to both the Gov. Mitt Romney and Obama administrations in designing their health care plans, also takes issue with the word "forced."

"A key thing to watch out for in this debate is mixing up voluntary actions with ‘forced’ actions," he said. "What the (Health and Human Services) memo says is that almost 80 percent of small firms will move out of grandfathered plans. It doesn’t say that they will be forced out — most of the moves will be voluntary as firms move to plans that they prefer. We don't know what the split is between voluntary and involuntary moves. Even before Obamacare, most small firms change plans over time."

(Source)
Right-wing hysteria fail.

[Pho King]

If Obamacare is upheld, I'd like to know what limits would be left, on government forcing us to buy ANYTHING.

What items or services could the govt NOT force us to buy?

Or would literally everything be on the table, and the only reason the government is not forcing us to buy X, is that they decided not to, for the time being? But might change their minds next week or next month?

Specifically, what items or services would government be FORBIDDEN to force us to buy?

The only limits will be those inherent in the political/legislative process.

[Cyclone Ranger]

The limits will be the constitutional ones: general welfare.

[Pho King]

Which is to say, there will be no limits.

[Cyclone Ranger]

BS. Not everything is necessary and proper, or promotes the general welfare. ie, limits.

[Pho King]

All the feds need to do is state that the purchase is for the general welfare. Thats a policy decision. SCOTUS wont touch it.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Don't know about that. Obama's healthcare law is a policy act, and the SCOTUS doesn't seem to have a problem with ruling on it.

[Freedom&Liberty]

All the feds need to do is state that the purchase is for the general welfare. Thats a policy decision. SCOTUS wont touch it.

CR thinks governments exists to fulfill the desires of the people. I've squashed him with historical facts and buried him in quotes from framers, but the dumbass continues to tell the same lies again and again.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Governments are the peoples' collective buying plan.

Unfortunately, you can't counter Alexander Hamilton. Like Scalia said, Congress decides how to spend, and that's the end of it. Ridiculous bullshit like the idea that the General Welfare clause only applies to something called "the union" which is different than the federal government doesn't change that fact.

[Freedom&Liberty]

I countered everything you brought and then some. Hamilton ain't shit. My foot was up your ass for so long that your tongue has athletes foot. The General Welfare doesn't apply to the people. Get it right next time, Moe.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Sorry, but Hamilton was an actual framer of the Constitution. Moreover, the SCOTUS ruled his way long ago.

So, you lost. Get over it.

[antiquity]

Sorry, but Hamilton was an actual framer of the Constitution. Moreover, the SCOTUS ruled his way long ago.

So, you lost. Get over it.

No one has lost. The SC hasn't made a ruling yet.

But if the government made the ruling that Broccoli is good and necessary for health reasons, could you be required to buy it? According to liberals the answer is yes.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Haven't made a ruling on Obamacare, but in any event, their ruling is unlikely to overthrow the Hamiltonian interpretation of the General Welfare clause.

[Pho King]

Don't know about that. Obama's healthcare law is a policy act, and the SCOTUS doesn't seem to have a problem with ruling on it.

They are about to rule on whether or not, as a part of public policy, government can mandate the purchase of a private product. They are not going to rule on the public policy aspect. SCOTUS does not set public policy- ie-whether a stated public policy "promotes the general welfare". That is not a topic that is proper for SCOTUS to consider. You know that. If in the future a mandate comes down to purchase broccoli, whwther or not such a mandate promotes the general welfare will never even be consideredf.

[Toby-T]

BS. Not everything is necessary and proper, or promotes the general welfare. ie, limits.

What gives the government, or you for that matter, the power to decide for me what is 'necessary and proper' to promote my welfare? Just admit it, you dont give a damn about liberty in any way, shape, matter or form. You and your leftist buddies think that you know better than we know ourselves what is best for us, and you want to force your soultions down our throats regardless of what we think or say about it, our personal freedoms be damned!

[antiquity]

After another day in the SC on the health care issue, it doesn't look good for Obama. Even some of the liberals were asking pointed questions of the government position.

[Little-Acorn]

They are about to rule on whether or not, as a part of public policy, government can mandate the purchase of a private product. They are not going to rule on the public policy aspect. SCOTUS does not set public policy- ie-whether a stated public policy "promotes the general welfare". That is not a topic that is proper for SCOTUS to consider. You know that. If in the future a mandate comes down to purchase broccoli, whwther or not such a mandate promotes the general welfare will never even be consideredf.

Actually, the clause in the Constitution about the "General Welfare", is not a permision forCongress to do thing. It is a restriction.

Something I wrote a few years ago, when Obamacare was being pushed for passage:

----------------------------

House Majority Leader Hoyer announced today that the "Welfare Clause" of the Constitution gives the Fed Govt broad powers to do virtually anything it wants to promote the welfare of the U.S. It was another misinterpretation of that part of the Constitution, common among big-government advocates.

Actually that part of the Const says that Congress can collect taxes for certain purposes, and no others. One of the purposes is "to provide for the General Welfare of the U.S.". But that means, Congress can spend tax money on things that benefit all American equally... and NOT on things that benefit some but not others.

When the Constitution was written, there were two kinds of "Welfare": "General" welfare, and "Particular" welfare. "General" welfare meant things that benefit everyone equally, while "Particular" welfare meant things that benefit only certain persons or groups but not everyone.

So the "Welfare clause" is actually a restriction. Congress can spend tax money on things that benefit all Americans equally, but not on things that only benefit some (what we would call Special Interests today).

If it were to give the Fed govt the broad powers Hoyer claims it does, 3/4 of the Constitution would become irrelevant. There would be no need for it to spell out the actual powers it does (Running the armed forces, setting up courts, coining money etc. - all of which benefit people).

The Welfare Clause meant nothing of the kind, of course. The entire Constitution was written to create the Fed govt, take some powers from the states and give them to the Fed... and to forbid the Fed from any others, which the states still hold.

This purpose is violated by Big-Govt advocates (in both parties) all the time, of course. Hoyer's bizarre announcement is merely more of the same... and is just as wrong today as it has been for centuries, no matter how often the Constitution is violated.

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55851

Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance

Wednesday, October 21, 2009
By Matt Cover

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”

The Congressional Budget Office, however, has stated in the past that a mandate forcing Americans to buy health insurance would be an “unprecedented form of federal action,” and that the “government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”