comments_imageCOMMENTS: 47

Is House Health Care Bill a Threat to Our Constitution?

The House health-care bill isn't just a threat to women's rights; with the Stupak amendment, it's a breach of the Constitution.
November 18, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

EDITOR'S NOTE: This piece was delivered as a statement at a press conference called by the Religious Coaltion for Reproductive Choice at the National Press Club on November 16, 2009. The topic was the anti-choice amendment, authored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., that was attached to the House health-care reform bill.

In the United States, the institutions of government and religion are separate.
 
This is not just my opinion. It is the law of the land. Our Constitution prohibits Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” The Supreme Court has stated more than once that laws must not advance religion or have a religious purpose.
 
How surprising and appalling, then, to see that a provision designed to curtail women’s right to abortion was slipped into the health-care bill at the behest of a powerful religious group, a provision that reflects the doctrines of that group.
 
A few days ago, Rep. Bart Stupak, the prime mover of this provision, told the Associated Press, “The Catholic Church used their power — their clout, if you will — to influence this issue. They had to. It’s a basic teaching of the religion.”
 
Therein lies the problem. It is not the job of government to enforce religious teaching. Abortion is a constitutionally protected medical procedure in this country. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has sought to change that fact, but the bishops have been unable to persuade the American people that their view is correct. Indeed, polls show that the church hierarchy has been unable to persuade even its own members to adopt the church’s narrow view on legal abortion.
 
The church hierarchy now seeks through legislative action to accomplish something it has failed to get through its own efforts at moral suasion. Is it any wonder that those of us who are not even members of the church are upset and angry about this? We wish to live in the 21st Century, not an echo of medieval Spain. We do not wish to have the doctrines of the Catholic Church – or indeed any faith – imposed on us through law.
 
I understand the desire of the House leadership to pass a health-care bill. The issue has been on the national agenda in some form or another since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.
 
But health-care reform that attacks the rights of more than half of the population by subjecting some of their basic and most intimate decisions to a large and powerful church’s governing body is not reform at all. It is a huge step backward. As the director of a constitutional rights group – and I
say this sadly -- it would be better to dump the entire bill than to allow it to become law with these noxious provisions intact.
 
I suppose those of us standing here today may be accused of “anti-Catholicism” for what we have said. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know that across this country, Catholics of goodwill have joined us in opposing this heavy-handed move by the bishops and their Washington lobbyists. You can feel the anger stirring across the land; a backlash is building. It will not be silenced, and we are here today to give voice to that movement.
 
I have always taken as one of my guiding lights America’s first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy. In a famous 1960 speech he said, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act…. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish, where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials….”
 
Those were wise words. We best honor them today not by enshrining them in books and nodding in agreement when we read them. We honor those words by putting them into practice and ensuring that America upholds the separation of church and state
 
That’s why we are calling on the Senate to not include this amendment in their version of the bill. There is still time to stop this from becoming law.
 
This lobbying effort by the Roman Catholic Church was as well-orchestrated and ruthless an assault on the rights of the poor as any campaign waged by any other corporation. At a minimum, the church should voluntarily register as a federal lobbyist and disclose the costs of this attack on women’s constitutional rights. This would be consistent with an ethos of transparency, without even raising the specter of undue government interference with religion.


Rev. Barry Lynn is executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email


Comments are closed-

Stupak amendment no reason to scrap House bill...
Posted by: Bibsisis on Nov 18, 2009 2:58 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because the bill is being re-written and melded with the Senate version at this moment. Stupak, in an interview yesterday, said he only wanted to preserve what the Hyde amendment has done for several yrs., i.e., not permit federal money to be used for abortions, and that he was willing to change the language to suit opponents--public and Congress--to preserve the status quo regarding abortion rights.

I could be wrong, but I think many reps. voted for the Stupak amendment to get a health care reform out of the House so it could proceed to Senate and be upgraded to conform to President Obama's specs. I could be wrong, but I also think Stupak's amendment and the one proposed by Hatch of Utah yesterday are simply attempts to keep this non-issue "out there" for their conservative voter-constitutents. As the president said, this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill.

Forget about scrapping the bill. It passed,and, in itself, is over, and another bill incorporating public sentiment will be included while preserving some of the good measures in the House bill with final, revised version of the bill coming out of Senate perhaps this wk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

kill the healthcare bill and start over
Posted by: Bearzerker on Nov 18, 2009 9:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why are we reinforcing AND paying the for profit insurance lobby?

Denis Kucinich is right... what a disaster

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Thanks Alternet
Posted by: ladyoracle on Nov 19, 2009 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's important about the problem with the Stupak amendment is that it is unconstitutional, and thank you for making that point the focus of the article. What's at stake is the state/church split, and it should be intolerabel to any American to have clergy of any belief influencing our nation's laws.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Constitutionally protected
Posted by: Government Is The Beast on Nov 19, 2009 4:13 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While a womans right to an abortion may be Constitutionally protected, it is not Constitutionally mandated that everyone else has to pay for it. I am pro choice not because I believe abortion is a good thing, rather the freedom to choose is more important than the argument over weather or not a group of cells is a human being.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree, except Posted by: Word Mix
» Those were the days, my friend. Posted by: UnEasyOne
» ELECTIVE SURGERY Posted by: fbear0143

Comments are closed-

Stupak is not the only constitutionality issue.
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Nov 19, 2009 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Requiring that every American citizen, simply as a condition of drawing breath patronize the most rapacious companies in the country at whatever price those companies choose to charge, turns the corporate boards of those companies into taxing entities every time they choose to raise any price! The constitution is very clear on this point - only the congress can raise taxes.

The counter example of auto insurance is not valid. While I personally believe that if the states are going to mandate insurance, they should provide that insurance (like flood insurance), there are huge differences.

Operating a motor vehicle on the publicly funded roads and highways is NOT a constitutional right! There are perfectly legitimate licensing requirements and other regulations. While alternatives to driving a car may completely suck, they do exist.

These are STATE mandates, not Federal. Constitutionally, that turns out to be a huge difference.

You can choose not to drive a car, your license to drive can be suspended or revoked. Citizenship is a birthright of everyone born here. Requiring me to patronize some robber baron simply as a condition of drawing breath, is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is an incredibly dangerous and entirely unconstitutional precedent.

Unless there is a viable public option (such as Medicare) that anyone mandated to be insured can buy into, I am unalterably opposed to this legislation on constitutional grounds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly right Posted by: NWCrow

Comments are closed-

Our Poor Constitution
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 19, 2009 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Time, inattention and subversion have conspired to alter its meaning and application. One wonders whether the framers of this document would recognize it the way we now understand it. They probably would be surprised that we still bother to pay lip service to what they wrote.

Only the Congress will have the power to declare war. Clearly the founders meant that this country would not go to war unless the Congress debated the issue and approve of it. This seems a quaint notion to Washington today and it seems it has for at least the last half-century.

Section 8 of the Constitution, in listing the powers of Congress lists, To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years. It would seem that the founders intended that there be no standing army and that any army formed to fight a war would exist for at most two years. Other list items in section 8 mention the forming and support of a militia and clearly this is what they intended in place of a standing army. Curiously, the founders did list the the authority to maintain a navy (but not an army.

It is historically curious that much of our focus on the constitution today is directed toward the Bill of Rights. This is curious because most of the founders felt that these amendments were unnecessary because they were redundant. The amendments were added to satisfy political needs of the day and were redundant because the constitution already guaranteed that all rights not specifically enumerated in the body of the constitution remained the rights of the people.

Specifically in contradiction to the Ninth Amendment, today's attitude often seems to be that unless a right is specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it is not a right of the people. This is just wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Mandated spending by individuals is unconstitutional
Posted by: lclark on Nov 19, 2009 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Federal government has no authority to mandate how I spent my income. It only has taxing authority.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Single Payer Government Health System
Posted by: Meanjoegreen on Nov 19, 2009 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bold The reason most Americans don't want a single payer government health care system is because it will end up just like the ones in Canada and England where cost control boards deside who gets good care, poor care or no care at all except a few meds. Wait times in these systems most times are weeks to months for treatment other than simple visit to the doctor for a cold or flu. There is a shortage of doctors in this systems. Why?, because they don't get paid enough. Will anyone guarantee that doctors will get paid a fair wage in a single payer government health system? NO! Will you also guarantee prompt treatemnt for everyone? No!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Constitution? What's that?
Posted by: Lucidity on Nov 19, 2009 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When are people going to wake up to the fact that our Constitutional rights have been eroding piece by piece as soon as it was drafted? Writing and bitching about it doesn’t seem to be getting us very far because they aren’t listening. They just keep doing whatever they feel like doing all the while saying to hell with us. We don’t matter. We are just worthless eaters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Broader constitutional questions: by what authority does the Federal Government...
Posted by: franklyspanking on Nov 19, 2009 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...require a citizen purchase a service or commodity?

Yes, there's car insurance, but driving a car is a privilege and involves putting folks around you in danger whilst you motor your prius/hummer/taurus down the road, and it's handled by the States.

So again, from what constitutional power does the Federal Government derive the power to mandate the purchase of individual health insurance? Will it be back doored under the interstate commerce clause?

While I applaud you finally locating your copy of the consitution on this particular issue, the broader imposition is at least as important, especially given that it directly affects more than just premenopausal women.

A final thought...won't BHO and his Congresscritters have their hands full enough with running us into hell with Iraq and Afghanistan, running their two new Federal car companies, paying lip service to folks with fraudulent mortgages, and keeping their banker buddies in $200 cigars and million dollar bonuses at our expense to really, really focus on taking good care of my prostate, let alone your fetus?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well, that's all and well and good... Posted by: franklyspanking

Comments are closed-

Take Action for True Health Care Reform
Posted by: greenferret on Nov 19, 2009 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
House Democrats killed two provisions that could have given us the best health care in the world: single-payer. They also added an anti-choice amendment that threatens reproductive rights. But we've still got a chance at real reform in the U.S. Senate.

Tell your senators to support single-payer health care by co-sponsoring S. 703, the American Health Security Act.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

GOOD ARTICLE!- BUT BAD HEADLINE
Posted by: drricklippin on Nov 19, 2009 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks Rev Barry Lynn

But I sure wish you or AlterNet would have run a differently worded headline

Be Well,

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
ralippin@aol.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Its Better Than Nothing
Posted by: melpol on Nov 19, 2009 11:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once a healthcare bill is passed and signed by the president, 40 thousand soldiers will be on their way. Senators from states that supply weapons to our troops got down with the program only after being assured of a troop buildup in Afghanistan. Its a give and take world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Read it an weep!
Posted by: lclark on Nov 19, 2009 1:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As reported by the NY times, the fines/fees/taxes associated with non-compliance to the healthcare mandates:

House version:
Penalty: Tax equal to 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income over certain thresholds ($9,350 for individuals, $18,700 for couples).

Exemptions: American Indians, people with religious objections and people who can show financial hardship

Senate Version:
Penalty: Starts at $95 a year per person in 2014 and rises to $350 in 2015 and $750 in 2016, with a maximum of $2,250 for a family. No penalty if the cost of cheapest available plan exceeds 8 percent of household income.

Exemptions: American Indians, people with religious objections and people who can show financial hardship.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Catholic Church Does Have A Certain Right
Posted by: Eric.Arthur.Blair on Nov 19, 2009 1:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They have a right to dictate to their adherents matters of doctrine, faith and morality. A priest, bishop or pope can tell a catholic woman not to use the pill, have an abortion or screw anyone she's not married to, but none of those people have any right to tell non-Catholics what to do; nor do they have a right to tell anyone, Catholic or not, for what or whom to vote. Likewise, the Southern Baptists can tell wives to "gracefully submit" to their husbands, but if you're not a Southern Bptist woman, you can tell the preachers (and your partners, if you choose) to go to hell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Listen
Posted by: Richardsievert on Nov 20, 2009 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I have to say this a thousand times a million Intel you creation's get it I will ' A saving's account with a single payer for both house home and medical for everyone after it reaches 1000 from either donation's from church or state it stop's the need to pay it get's a national interest rate of 9 percent after three year's if not used the people get there five percent back as long as it is in there' The insurance that collect's it for any medical home or house insurance car insurance is to be used from this account period. no more bill every month the worthless bank would have to finality be worth something and back,This plan listen to me or be extinct as the dinosaur when i turn you into gas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Greatest Irony. . .
Posted by: Adastra on Nov 20, 2009 10:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . .of the Stupak amendment is that all the objections to abortion stem from the teachings of the Bible (as interpreted by the Catholics and Fundamentalists). The entity that eventually became the Roman Catholic Church decided nearly two thousand years ago, which of the hundreds of Christian writings would become part of the Bible. Modern Bible students who are incapable of understanding plain English, much less Demotic Greek, have decided that abortion is forbidden by the Bible. Oddly enough, they believe the Bible accomplishes this logical inconsistency without ever using the word "abortion". And they also ignore Gen. 2:7 in which we learn that when God created Adam, the man did not become a living soul until his body was formed and he started breathing. This is an irony that could only have been forged in Hell. How many women must suffer "womb-slavery" because prominent theologians cannot be bothered to read the book they revere? Or should I say the book they reverse?

Pick up a bible, if you have one. Check Gen. 2:7. It only takes a moment and a careful reading will show clearly how utterly hypocritical the anti-choice religious nuts have been. It's a disgrace to the name of Jesus Christ, or Yeshuah ha-Meshiach in the original Aramaic.

With love under will,

Bob, Adastra,
The Wizzard of Jacksonville

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Why worry about this bill?
Posted by: teinoaole on Nov 23, 2009 1:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not going to go into effect until 2014 -- maybe 2013...

That means the Health lobbies (all of them) have four years or more to REALLY rake it in.

Our current so-called "health care system" will be bankrupt long before then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Barry for President
Posted by: jmmartin on Nov 23, 2009 5:17 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barry Lynn would make a good president. He is one of the only religious people I know who does not offend. This is because he isn't selling religion but keeping it sacred.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Stupak amendment no reason to scrap House bill...
Posted by: Bibsisis on Nov 18, 2009 2:58 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because the bill is being re-written and melded with the Senate version at this moment. Stupak, in an interview yesterday, said he only wanted to preserve what the Hyde amendment has done for several yrs., i.e., not permit federal money to be used for abortions, and that he was willing to change the language to suit opponents--public and Congress--to preserve the status quo regarding abortion rights.

I could be wrong, but I think many reps. voted for the Stupak amendment to get a health care reform out of the House so it could proceed to Senate and be upgraded to conform to President Obama's specs. I could be wrong, but I also think Stupak's amendment and the one proposed by Hatch of Utah yesterday are simply attempts to keep this non-issue "out there" for their conservative voter-constitutents. As the president said, this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill.

Forget about scrapping the bill. It passed,and, in itself, is over, and another bill incorporating public sentiment will be included while preserving some of the good measures in the House bill with final, revised version of the bill coming out of Senate perhaps this wk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

kill the healthcare bill and start over
Posted by: Bearzerker on Nov 18, 2009 9:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why are we reinforcing AND paying the for profit insurance lobby?

Denis Kucinich is right... what a disaster

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Thanks Alternet
Posted by: ladyoracle on Nov 19, 2009 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's important about the problem with the Stupak amendment is that it is unconstitutional, and thank you for making that point the focus of the article. What's at stake is the state/church split, and it should be intolerabel to any American to have clergy of any belief influencing our nation's laws.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Constitutionally protected
Posted by: Government Is The Beast on Nov 19, 2009 4:13 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While a womans right to an abortion may be Constitutionally protected, it is not Constitutionally mandated that everyone else has to pay for it. I am pro choice not because I believe abortion is a good thing, rather the freedom to choose is more important than the argument over weather or not a group of cells is a human being.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree, except Posted by: Word Mix
» Those were the days, my friend. Posted by: UnEasyOne
» ELECTIVE SURGERY Posted by: fbear0143

Comments are closed-

Stupak is not the only constitutionality issue.
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Nov 19, 2009 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Requiring that every American citizen, simply as a condition of drawing breath patronize the most rapacious companies in the country at whatever price those companies choose to charge, turns the corporate boards of those companies into taxing entities every time they choose to raise any price! The constitution is very clear on this point - only the congress can raise taxes.

The counter example of auto insurance is not valid. While I personally believe that if the states are going to mandate insurance, they should provide that insurance (like flood insurance), there are huge differences.

Operating a motor vehicle on the publicly funded roads and highways is NOT a constitutional right! There are perfectly legitimate licensing requirements and other regulations. While alternatives to driving a car may completely suck, they do exist.

These are STATE mandates, not Federal. Constitutionally, that turns out to be a huge difference.

You can choose not to drive a car, your license to drive can be suspended or revoked. Citizenship is a birthright of everyone born here. Requiring me to patronize some robber baron simply as a condition of drawing breath, is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is an incredibly dangerous and entirely unconstitutional precedent.

Unless there is a viable public option (such as Medicare) that anyone mandated to be insured can buy into, I am unalterably opposed to this legislation on constitutional grounds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly right Posted by: NWCrow

Comments are closed-

Our Poor Constitution
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 19, 2009 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Time, inattention and subversion have conspired to alter its meaning and application. One wonders whether the framers of this document would recognize it the way we now understand it. They probably would be surprised that we still bother to pay lip service to what they wrote.

Only the Congress will have the power to declare war. Clearly the founders meant that this country would not go to war unless the Congress debated the issue and approve of it. This seems a quaint notion to Washington today and it seems it has for at least the last half-century.

Section 8 of the Constitution, in listing the powers of Congress lists, To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years. It would seem that the founders intended that there be no standing army and that any army formed to fight a war would exist for at most two years. Other list items in section 8 mention the forming and support of a militia and clearly this is what they intended in place of a standing army. Curiously, the founders did list the the authority to maintain a navy (but not an army.

It is historically curious that much of our focus on the constitution today is directed toward the Bill of Rights. This is curious because most of the founders felt that these amendments were unnecessary because they were redundant. The amendments were added to satisfy political needs of the day and were redundant because the constitution already guaranteed that all rights not specifically enumerated in the body of the constitution remained the rights of the people.

Specifically in contradiction to the Ninth Amendment, today's attitude often seems to be that unless a right is specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it is not a right of the people. This is just wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Mandated spending by individuals is unconstitutional
Posted by: lclark on Nov 19, 2009 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Federal government has no authority to mandate how I spent my income. It only has taxing authority.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Single Payer Government Health System
Posted by: Meanjoegreen on Nov 19, 2009 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bold The reason most Americans don't want a single payer government health care system is because it will end up just like the ones in Canada and England where cost control boards deside who gets good care, poor care or no care at all except a few meds. Wait times in these systems most times are weeks to months for treatment other than simple visit to the doctor for a cold or flu. There is a shortage of doctors in this systems. Why?, because they don't get paid enough. Will anyone guarantee that doctors will get paid a fair wage in a single payer government health system? NO! Will you also guarantee prompt treatemnt for everyone? No!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Constitution? What's that?
Posted by: Lucidity on Nov 19, 2009 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When are people going to wake up to the fact that our Constitutional rights have been eroding piece by piece as soon as it was drafted? Writing and bitching about it doesn’t seem to be getting us very far because they aren’t listening. They just keep doing whatever they feel like doing all the while saying to hell with us. We don’t matter. We are just worthless eaters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Broader constitutional questions: by what authority does the Federal Government...
Posted by: franklyspanking on Nov 19, 2009 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...require a citizen purchase a service or commodity?

Yes, there's car insurance, but driving a car is a privilege and involves putting folks around you in danger whilst you motor your prius/hummer/taurus down the road, and it's handled by the States.

So again, from what constitutional power does the Federal Government derive the power to mandate the purchase of individual health insurance? Will it be back doored under the interstate commerce clause?

While I applaud you finally locating your copy of the consitution on this particular issue, the broader imposition is at least as important, especially given that it directly affects more than just premenopausal women.

A final thought...won't BHO and his Congresscritters have their hands full enough with running us into hell with Iraq and Afghanistan, running their two new Federal car companies, paying lip service to folks with fraudulent mortgages, and keeping their banker buddies in $200 cigars and million dollar bonuses at our expense to really, really focus on taking good care of my prostate, let alone your fetus?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well, that's all and well and good... Posted by: franklyspanking

Comments are closed-

Take Action for True Health Care Reform
Posted by: greenferret on Nov 19, 2009 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
House Democrats killed two provisions that could have given us the best health care in the world: single-payer. They also added an anti-choice amendment that threatens reproductive rights. But we've still got a chance at real reform in the U.S. Senate.

Tell your senators to support single-payer health care by co-sponsoring S. 703, the American Health Security Act.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

GOOD ARTICLE!- BUT BAD HEADLINE
Posted by: drricklippin on Nov 19, 2009 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks Rev Barry Lynn

But I sure wish you or AlterNet would have run a differently worded headline

Be Well,

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
ralippin@aol.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Its Better Than Nothing
Posted by: melpol on Nov 19, 2009 11:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once a healthcare bill is passed and signed by the president, 40 thousand soldiers will be on their way. Senators from states that supply weapons to our troops got down with the program only after being assured of a troop buildup in Afghanistan. Its a give and take world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Read it an weep!
Posted by: lclark on Nov 19, 2009 1:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As reported by the NY times, the fines/fees/taxes associated with non-compliance to the healthcare mandates:

House version:
Penalty: Tax equal to 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income over certain thresholds ($9,350 for individuals, $18,700 for couples).

Exemptions: American Indians, people with religious objections and people who can show financial hardship

Senate Version:
Penalty: Starts at $95 a year per person in 2014 and rises to $350 in 2015 and $750 in 2016, with a maximum of $2,250 for a family. No penalty if the cost of cheapest available plan exceeds 8 percent of household income.

Exemptions: American Indians, people with religious objections and people who can show financial hardship.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Catholic Church Does Have A Certain Right
Posted by: Eric.Arthur.Blair on Nov 19, 2009 1:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They have a right to dictate to their adherents matters of doctrine, faith and morality. A priest, bishop or pope can tell a catholic woman not to use the pill, have an abortion or screw anyone she's not married to, but none of those people have any right to tell non-Catholics what to do; nor do they have a right to tell anyone, Catholic or not, for what or whom to vote. Likewise, the Southern Baptists can tell wives to "gracefully submit" to their husbands, but if you're not a Southern Bptist woman, you can tell the preachers (and your partners, if you choose) to go to hell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Listen
Posted by: Richardsievert on Nov 20, 2009 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I have to say this a thousand times a million Intel you creation's get it I will ' A saving's account with a single payer for both house home and medical for everyone after it reaches 1000 from either donation's from church or state it stop's the need to pay it get's a national interest rate of 9 percent after three year's if not used the people get there five percent back as long as it is in there' The insurance that collect's it for any medical home or house insurance car insurance is to be used from this account period. no more bill every month the worthless bank would have to finality be worth something and back,This plan listen to me or be extinct as the dinosaur when i turn you into gas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Greatest Irony. . .
Posted by: Adastra on Nov 20, 2009 10:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . .of the Stupak amendment is that all the objections to abortion stem from the teachings of the Bible (as interpreted by the Catholics and Fundamentalists). The entity that eventually became the Roman Catholic Church decided nearly two thousand years ago, which of the hundreds of Christian writings would become part of the Bible. Modern Bible students who are incapable of understanding plain English, much less Demotic Greek, have decided that abortion is forbidden by the Bible. Oddly enough, they believe the Bible accomplishes this logical inconsistency without ever using the word "abortion". And they also ignore Gen. 2:7 in which we learn that when God created Adam, the man did not become a living soul until his body was formed and he started breathing. This is an irony that could only have been forged in Hell. How many women must suffer "womb-slavery" because prominent theologians cannot be bothered to read the book they revere? Or should I say the book they reverse?

Pick up a bible, if you have one. Check Gen. 2:7. It only takes a moment and a careful reading will show clearly how utterly hypocritical the anti-choice religious nuts have been. It's a disgrace to the name of Jesus Christ, or Yeshuah ha-Meshiach in the original Aramaic.

With love under will,

Bob, Adastra,
The Wizzard of Jacksonville

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Why worry about this bill?
Posted by: teinoaole on Nov 23, 2009 1:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not going to go into effect until 2014 -- maybe 2013...

That means the Health lobbies (all of them) have four years or more to REALLY rake it in.

Our current so-called "health care system" will be bankrupt long before then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Barry for President
Posted by: jmmartin on Nov 23, 2009 5:17 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barry Lynn would make a good president. He is one of the only religious people I know who does not offend. This is because he isn't selling religion but keeping it sacred.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS