Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

So is it unconstitutional or not?

WASHINGTON – Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

 
sweet-a-kins

Asked by sweet-a-kins at 12:40 PM on Mar. 27, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 34 (67,502 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (41)
  • Sweet-a-kins, I get what you're saying. Parties aside, EVERY politician tells their constituents and fellow party members what they think they want to hear. In the past, Republicans liked the idea of mandated insurance, now they have flipped and are against it. We are talking about one point in the bill and the mandate is what people are complaining about most.

    As a follow up- assuming this bill is indeed stamped with the unconstitutional label by the Supreme Court-if an amendment is made to the constitution changing the 10th making it constitutional, would people stop bitching? My guess is no.

    I don't care if people think the above HYPOTHETICAL situation is plausible or not, just asking the question. Amendments are added on occasion to change previous amendments, it is possible whether probably or not.
    heatheryn

    Answer by heatheryn at 2:57 PM on Mar. 27, 2010

  • Conservatives today say that's unacceptable. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans — the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare. Most experts agree some kind of requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance doesn't work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick.


    In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.


    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overhaul_requiring_insurance

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 12:42 PM on Mar. 27, 2010

  • The courts will decide.
    older

    Answer by older at 12:47 PM on Mar. 27, 2010

  • the courts get to decide everything, and their decisions are upheld, whether they are constitutional or not.
    brookebella

    Answer by brookebella at 12:58 PM on Mar. 27, 2010

  • brook, the court have more knowledge of the law than the average joe, if they deem it to be unconstitutional or not, then so be it.
    older

    Answer by older at 1:18 PM on Mar. 27, 2010

  • It's only unconstitutional when the Dems want it.
    trippyhippy

    Answer by trippyhippy at 1:26 PM on Mar. 27, 2010

  • Hello?????? Mitt Romney is not THE REPUBLICANS. We all know he instituted his brand of healthcare in his state. If the Republicans were for this mandatory healthcare they would have gotten it when Clinton was in because she wanted it. Anyway, I read this and nowhere is there any proof of what they are saying. They just mention Romney. Dems are just a bunch of babies doing whatever they can to tear down Republicans. I tell you it's going to get much worse.
    itsmesteph11

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 1:33 PM on Mar. 27, 2010

  • R-E-A-C-H and S-T-R-E-T-C-H!!!! LOL

    First of all, whatever the Republicans may have proposed 20 years ago, didn't matter, becuase what "Hill-Billy" proposed never got to the vote stage--so it's all moot!

    Secondly, NOT ONE...I repeat, NOT ONE Republican voted for this most recent monstrosity, which has in it, what Republicans SUPPOSEDLY wanted--so how is it, it's now the Republican's fault?! LOL

    You got your "Uncle Barry health care plan" hope you enjoy it thoroughly, along with every penny it costs you! Try your best, you can't pin this one on Republicans, now that it REALLY matters! :o)
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 1:36 PM on Mar. 27, 2010

  • Republican, democrat or whatever partisan group one may belong to,FEDREALLY run and mandated health care is unconstitutional and violates thee 10th amendment that states that powers not specifically designated by the constitution should then be left to the states to decide. This should be a state issue and not a federal one. Ergo, the dreaded health care bill is unconstitutional.
    lillys_mommy09

    Answer by lillys_mommy09 at 1:38 PM on Mar. 27, 2010

  • Secondly, NOT ONE...I repeat, NOT ONE Republican voted for this most recent monstrosity, which has in it, what Republicans SUPPOSEDLY wanted--so how is it, it's now the Republican's fault


    Who said anything was anyone's fault? The Q is is it unconstitutional?? and if it is today, why was it presented as an alternative BY the same people saying it's unconstitutional NOW...As far as I can remember the same constitution was in place during the 90's

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 1:39 PM on Mar. 27, 2010

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN