<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Constitutional Challenges to Health Care Reform</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pubrecord.org/commentary/6386/legal-challenges-health-reform/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pubrecord.org/commentary/6386/legal-challenges-health-reform/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=legal-challenges-health-reform</link>
	<description>Intrepid New Journalism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 23:20:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: michael ace</title>
		<link>http://pubrecord.org/commentary/6386/legal-challenges-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-1806</link>
		<dc:creator>michael ace</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 08:21:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pubrecord.org/?p=6386#comment-1806</guid>
		<description>Auto Insurance is not really mandatory----How many blind people carry auto insurance----how many 7 year olds----how many with no drivers license or no cars----if you have no use for a product or cant afford it----You Don&#039;t Buy It----Next will we see Mandotory Extended Warrenty Protection on Everyone who owns a car or Mandatory Pet Health Care on all Licensed Pet Owners</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Auto Insurance is not really mandatory&#8212;-How many blind people carry auto insurance&#8212;-how many 7 year olds&#8212;-how many with no drivers license or no cars&#8212;-if you have no use for a product or cant afford it&#8212;-You Don&#8217;t Buy It&#8212;-Next will we see Mandotory Extended Warrenty Protection on Everyone who owns a car or Mandatory Pet Health Care on all Licensed Pet Owners</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dobropet</title>
		<link>http://pubrecord.org/commentary/6386/legal-challenges-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-1795</link>
		<dc:creator>dobropet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:30:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pubrecord.org/?p=6386#comment-1795</guid>
		<description>Fortunately, there&#039;s always nullification;

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/21/health-care-nullification-things-have-just-gotten-underway/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fortunately, there&#8217;s always nullification;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/21/health-care-nullification-things-have-just-gotten-underway/" rel="nofollow">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/21/health-care-nullification-things-have-just-gotten-underway/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AlexHidell</title>
		<link>http://pubrecord.org/commentary/6386/legal-challenges-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-1794</link>
		<dc:creator>AlexHidell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:15:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pubrecord.org/?p=6386#comment-1794</guid>
		<description>&quot;There is a middle-class tax time bomb ticking in the Senate’s version of President Obama’s effort to reform health care. &quot;

A Less Than Honest Policy
By BOB HERBERT

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/opinion/29herbert.html?_r=2&amp;ref=opinion

The country can&#039;t afford this bill as it is currently set up.  Change it NOW !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;There is a middle-class tax time bomb ticking in the Senate’s version of President Obama’s effort to reform health care. &#8221;</p>
<p>A Less Than Honest Policy<br />
By BOB HERBERT</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/opinion/29herbert.html?_r=2&#038;ref=opinion" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/opinion/29herbert.html?_r=2&#038;ref=opinion</a></p>
<p>The country can&#8217;t afford this bill as it is currently set up.  Change it NOW !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dobropet</title>
		<link>http://pubrecord.org/commentary/6386/legal-challenges-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-1790</link>
		<dc:creator>dobropet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:28:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pubrecord.org/?p=6386#comment-1790</guid>
		<description>Interesting, is that why nominating Sotomayer was so crucial, getting closer to their leftists agenda via court rulings?

No, the constitution does not provide for any one single person to be forced to purchase health insurance. The meaning of &quot;welfare&quot; in the constitution does not apply to healthcare as some have attempted to define it. In order for such a belief to solidify you&#039;d have to assume that healthcare is a right, which it is not. Those rights are already define within the consitution- life, liberty, &amp; the pursuit of happiness- and the inalienable rights, those that can be enjoyed without destruction or abuse of anothers rights.

Here&#039;s a good argument of healthcare as to it&#039;s not being a right,

“Medical care is not a right. Medical care is a service provided by doctors and others to individuals who want to purchase it. A patient presents to the doctor with a request for care. The fact that the patient has a serious condition – even a life threatening one – does not entitle him, as his right, to the services of the doctor. To claim that he does means that doctors and others who provide these services have no rights, or that society can deliberately ignore these rights for the “greater good”. [...] If the exercise of a patient’s so-called “right” to healthcare imposes obligations on taxpayers to pay for it and healthcare practitioners to provide it, then it is not a right, but an attempt to enslave one part of the population for the benefit of another part. In reality, these types of so-called “rights” are offered to groups of Americans by politicians in exchange for votes. Claims on humanitarian concerns are merely a fig leaf over a naked power grab by the state.” -Maria Martins


Which also covers your information on the supreme court&#039;s future ruling elsewhere stated in this piece.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting, is that why nominating Sotomayer was so crucial, getting closer to their leftists agenda via court rulings?</p>
<p>No, the constitution does not provide for any one single person to be forced to purchase health insurance. The meaning of &#8220;welfare&#8221; in the constitution does not apply to healthcare as some have attempted to define it. In order for such a belief to solidify you&#8217;d have to assume that healthcare is a right, which it is not. Those rights are already define within the consitution- life, liberty, &amp; the pursuit of happiness- and the inalienable rights, those that can be enjoyed without destruction or abuse of anothers rights.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s a good argument of healthcare as to it&#8217;s not being a right,</p>
<p>“Medical care is not a right. Medical care is a service provided by doctors and others to individuals who want to purchase it. A patient presents to the doctor with a request for care. The fact that the patient has a serious condition – even a life threatening one – does not entitle him, as his right, to the services of the doctor. To claim that he does means that doctors and others who provide these services have no rights, or that society can deliberately ignore these rights for the “greater good”. [...] If the exercise of a patient’s so-called “right” to healthcare imposes obligations on taxpayers to pay for it and healthcare practitioners to provide it, then it is not a right, but an attempt to enslave one part of the population for the benefit of another part. In reality, these types of so-called “rights” are offered to groups of Americans by politicians in exchange for votes. Claims on humanitarian concerns are merely a fig leaf over a naked power grab by the state.” -Maria Martins</p>
<p>Which also covers your information on the supreme court&#8217;s future ruling elsewhere stated in this piece.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AlexHidell</title>
		<link>http://pubrecord.org/commentary/6386/legal-challenges-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-1788</link>
		<dc:creator>AlexHidell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:57:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pubrecord.org/?p=6386#comment-1788</guid>
		<description>I think that forcing an indegent or unemployed person to pay for something they cannot afford is a violation of the Eighth Amendment.  An unreasonable fine of $750 per person is another slap in the face to the poor.

Current healthcare costs are draining the economy, 70% of GDP is &#039;consumption&#039;,

Health Care Costs Curb Holiday Spending
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/144801/health_care_costs_curb_holiday_spending

so slamming the poor one more time doesn&#039;t seem to be a consideration of the wealthy and corporations as long as they finagle another tax break out of the process.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that forcing an indegent or unemployed person to pay for something they cannot afford is a violation of the Eighth Amendment.  An unreasonable fine of $750 per person is another slap in the face to the poor.</p>
<p>Current healthcare costs are draining the economy, 70% of GDP is &#8216;consumption&#8217;,</p>
<p>Health Care Costs Curb Holiday Spending<br />
<a href="http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/144801/health_care_costs_curb_holiday_spending" rel="nofollow">http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/144801/health_care_costs_curb_holiday_spending</a></p>
<p>so slamming the poor one more time doesn&#8217;t seem to be a consideration of the wealthy and corporations as long as they finagle another tax break out of the process.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lloyd G.</title>
		<link>http://pubrecord.org/commentary/6386/legal-challenges-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-1787</link>
		<dc:creator>Lloyd G.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:52:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pubrecord.org/?p=6386#comment-1787</guid>
		<description>Not that anyone in DC cares about the Constitution anymore...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not that anyone in DC cares about the Constitution anymore&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stevelaudig</title>
		<link>http://pubrecord.org/commentary/6386/legal-challenges-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-1784</link>
		<dc:creator>stevelaudig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pubrecord.org/?p=6386#comment-1784</guid>
		<description>No one makes you drive. You can arrange your life in such a way as to not drive. The compulsory premium is a &quot;tax&quot; paid to a private party? There&#039;s a due process taking of my property and making it someone else&#039;s property that I am not clearly describing that troubles me and warrants further examination.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No one makes you drive. You can arrange your life in such a way as to not drive. The compulsory premium is a &#8220;tax&#8221; paid to a private party? There&#8217;s a due process taking of my property and making it someone else&#8217;s property that I am not clearly describing that troubles me and warrants further examination.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KTinIL</title>
		<link>http://pubrecord.org/commentary/6386/legal-challenges-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-1783</link>
		<dc:creator>KTinIL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Dec 2009 05:52:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pubrecord.org/?p=6386#comment-1783</guid>
		<description>@ BLAKEINWV:

The difference is that auto insurance is mandated by the individual states, and they have that ability under their broad police power.  The federal government does not have any police power, except as interpreted through the commerce clause.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ BLAKEINWV:</p>
<p>The difference is that auto insurance is mandated by the individual states, and they have that ability under their broad police power.  The federal government does not have any police power, except as interpreted through the commerce clause.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BLAKEINWV</title>
		<link>http://pubrecord.org/commentary/6386/legal-challenges-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-1781</link>
		<dc:creator>BLAKEINWV</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:45:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pubrecord.org/?p=6386#comment-1781</guid>
		<description>How could you argue that mandating the purchase of insurance (health) is unprecedented when nearly every American driver is required to have automobile insurance?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How could you argue that mandating the purchase of insurance (health) is unprecedented when nearly every American driver is required to have automobile insurance?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: uberVU - social comments</title>
		<link>http://pubrecord.org/commentary/6386/legal-challenges-health-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-1778</link>
		<dc:creator>uberVU - social comments</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:00:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pubrecord.org/?p=6386#comment-1778</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Social comments and analytics for this post...&lt;/strong&gt;

This post was mentioned on Twitter by ThePublicRecord: Legal Challenges to US Health Care Reform http://bit.ly/6kHbW3...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Social comments and analytics for this post&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This post was mentioned on Twitter by ThePublicRecord: Legal Challenges to US Health Care Reform <a href="http://bit.ly/6kHbW3" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/6kHbW3</a>&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

