No, it’s not a constitutional violation at all at the state level. The states have a constitutional right to enact laws for their own states. However, the federal healthcare law is a violation since the federal government does not have the authority to force 50 states buy healthcare, which is what is being argued at the Supreme Court beginning today, in fact!
oh i see – so the “real” benefit of romneycare is that he ‘formalizes” who pays for it huh? wow genius! 😦 face it, his plan is a constitutional violation and of bigger more immediate concern is its an albatross on all of us going up against obama! mitt does not know what to do w/ this now so he shuns it off on states and takes a “WHO ME??” approach – people need to accept taht what he did in Mass was sink into the moderate swamp w/ the Libs, his plan was not the answer (as he now alludes to when pressed) – and own up to the fact that his past record of not just HC but of Maaaanny issues make him absolutely the WRONG nom this time round and against this particular foe!! GO RICK!
No, it’s not a constitutional violation at all at the state level. The states have a constitutional right to enact laws for their own states. However, the federal healthcare law is a violation since the federal government does not have the authority to force 50 states buy healthcare, which is what is being argued at the Supreme Court beginning today, in fact!
The real question is who is already being “mandated” to pay for the healthcare costs of the uninsured? Healthcare isn’t free so somebody is and already has been “mandated” to pay. Who is “mandated”? The answer is the taxpayer. The taxpayers have been shouldering the burden and “mandated” to pay for the costs of the uninsured through their taxes. These taxes are in essence the “mandate” that is and has already been in place to cover the uninsured.
Publius Prime
No, it’s not a constitutional violation at all at the state level. The states have a constitutional right to enact laws for their own states. However, the federal healthcare law is a violation since the federal government does not have the authority to force 50 states buy healthcare, which is what is being argued at the Supreme Court beginning today, in fact!
oh i see – so the “real” benefit of romneycare is that he ‘formalizes” who pays for it huh? wow genius! 😦 face it, his plan is a constitutional violation and of bigger more immediate concern is its an albatross on all of us going up against obama! mitt does not know what to do w/ this now so he shuns it off on states and takes a “WHO ME??” approach – people need to accept taht what he did in Mass was sink into the moderate swamp w/ the Libs, his plan was not the answer (as he now alludes to when pressed) – and own up to the fact that his past record of not just HC but of Maaaanny issues make him absolutely the WRONG nom this time round and against this particular foe!! GO RICK!
No, it’s not a constitutional violation at all at the state level. The states have a constitutional right to enact laws for their own states. However, the federal healthcare law is a violation since the federal government does not have the authority to force 50 states buy healthcare, which is what is being argued at the Supreme Court beginning today, in fact!
The real question is who is already being “mandated” to pay for the healthcare costs of the uninsured? Healthcare isn’t free so somebody is and already has been “mandated” to pay. Who is “mandated”? The answer is the taxpayer. The taxpayers have been shouldering the burden and “mandated” to pay for the costs of the uninsured through their taxes. These taxes are in essence the “mandate” that is and has already been in place to cover the uninsured.