Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
oh, and I do agree with mandated coverage. Not because I care about anyone's ability to get a new kidney and live but because I don't want them trying to change their mind at the last moment. Or worse, have their rotting corpses stinking up my front yard.
that general welfare thing was used to get South Carolina back and opened a whole can of worms. If you agree Alabama isn't part of the Union then this is a valid discussion.
So what's next?
the government mandating that we all buy a prescribed amount of fruits and vegetables every year or else have a tax penalty slapped on us?
How about mandated health club memberships and proof that you work out an hour a day or else get thrown in jail?
Does the Congress have the right to compell commerce under threat of penalty? (Jail and Fine)?
Yup.
Is it Unconstitutional to Mandate Health Insurance? : HEALTH REFORM WATCH
Constitutional attacks fall into two basic categories: (1) lack of federal power (Congress simply lacks any power to do this under the main body of the Constitution); and (2) violation of individual rights protected by the Bill of Rights. Considering (1), Congress has ample power and precedent through the Constitutions Commerce Clause to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy. Health insurance is quintessentially an economic good. The only possible objection is that mandating its purchase is not the same as regulating its purchase, but a mandate is just a stronger form of regulation. When Congressional power exists, nothing in law says that stronger actions are less supported than weaker ones.
O’Neill Institute » Legal Solutions in Health Reform » The Constitutionality of Mandates to Purchase Health Insurance
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/oneil...ive_Summaries/Individual_Mandates_ExecSum.pdf
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/oneillinstitute/projects/reform/Papers/Individual_Mandates.pdf
It is manifest that health insurance deals with economic transactions and substantially affects interstate commerce. Although much of health care delivery is local, most medical supplies, drugs and equipment are shipped in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the antitrust laws, for instance, have been applied repeatedly to local hospital and physician activities.
In Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees,12 the Court held that allegations of the combination of factors just noted is certainly sufficient to establish a substantial effect on interstate commerce under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Even more directly relevant is that most health insurance is sold through interstate companies. All of the largest insurers in the country operate on a multi-state basis.
Although in many states the largest insurer is a locally owned and operated Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan, these Blues plans contract with each other to accept Blues subscribers from any state into their provider networks. Regardless of how insurance is sold, it is well-established that matters relating to insurance substantially affect interstate commerce.13 In 1945, the Court (overruling its earlier precedent) ruled that insurance was interstate commerce subject to federal regulation.14 In response, Congress enacted the McCarran-Ferguson Act15
Rather than a direct mandate enforced by civil fines, Congress might instead impose a tax on people who do not have health insurance, as Massachusetts has done, or provide a tax credit or other benefit for those who do have health insurance. Structured this way, the mandate would not be a direct regulation; instead, it would impose indirect regulatory effects from a specially crafted tax law. This alternative to a mandate is frequently distinguished as a play or pay option: either employers or individuals play by purchasing insurance, or they pay a tax.
Another to declare that federal regulation of insurance is not to be inferred or assumed unless federal laws do so explicitly. Mandating health insurance directly affects interstate commerce in several ways. Covering more people is expected to reduce the price of insurance by addressing free-rider and adverse selection problems. Free riding includes relying on emergency care and other services without paying for all the costs, and forcing providers to shift those costs onto people with insurance.
Adverse selection is the tendency to wait to purchase until a person expects to need health care, thereby keeping out of the insurance pool a full cross section of both low and higher cost subscribers. Covering more people also could reduce premiums by enhancing economies of scale in pooling of risk and managing medical costs. Thus, absent any special states rights concerns under the 10th Amendment (discussed below), it is clear and well-settled that Congress has the power to mandate the purchase of health insurance.
To be extra safe, in view of Rehnquist-Court decisions (such as Lopez and Morrison) Congress should make an explicit jurisdictional statement with express findings on the substantial effects that an insurance mandate is expected have on or in interstate commerce.
A judge Friday struck down Milwaukee's controversial paid sick day ordinance that mandates that private employers provide paid sick leave, ruling it was invalidly enacted and unconstitutional.
In a 38-page decision, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Thomas Cooper wrote, "This is a case where the proposed ordinance's reach exceeds its grasp."
The decision will be appealed, said Amy Stear, state director of 9to5 the National Association of Working Women, the group that led the coalition of community organizations that put the measure on the November ballot. It passed with nearly 70% of the vote.
Only two other cities in the country, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., have similar laws.
Judge finds city's sick leave mandate unconstitutional - JSOnline
First of all, all the provisions you posted in Article 1 Sec. 8 as a support mechanism for mandates are a misread at best. First of all, while congress has the power to tax and to regulate interstate commerce including those insurance companies doing business from state to state, the tax is is on the transaction i.e. income. It is not used as a method to compel an individual to purchase a good or service even under the general welfare clause. If this were the case. there would be no need for any other right in the constitution other than the commerce clause according to that read, because it would give congress unlimted power to make laws as it see's fit. Want an example, congress under that intrepretation can mandate though a tax penalty that Americans that do not drive a GM car will pay a tax penalty. That is why taxes are based on INCOME see 16th amendment. One thing further, taxes have to apply equally and if you set out to penalize those that do not have insurance with a tax and not tax those that do have insurance , you have violated the 16th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment.
16th
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [ . . . ] but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
by not being uniform this mandate also violates the equal protection claause in the constitution.
14th
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
While those that support these mandates may cling to their belief that the commerce clause covers all, or Article 1 Sec. 8 overrides all, in this case it doesn't. So yes is is unconstitutional and will be found a such..
Although the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress's commerce power expansively, this type of mandate would not pass muster even under the most aggressive commerce clause cases. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the court upheld a federal law regulating the national wheat markets. The law was drawn so broadly that wheat grown for consumption on individual farms also was regulated. Even though this rule reached purely local (rather than interstate) activity, the court reasoned that the consumption of homegrown wheat by individual farms would, in the aggregate, have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and so was within Congress's reach.
David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey - Constitutionality of Health Insurance Mandate Questioned - washingtonpost.com
What does this have to do with CONGRESS compelling people to exercise COMMERCE?
NOTHING. They are telling people "PICK A PLAN OR GO TO JAIL".
The T
Quote: Originally Posted by Toronado3800 View Post
that general welfare thing was used to get South Carolina back and opened a whole can of worms. If you agree Alabama isn't part of the Union then this is a valid discussion.
What "General Welfare" thing do you mean? Spill it moron.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
What does this have to do with CONGRESS compelling people to exercise COMMERCE?
NOTHING. They are telling people "PICK A PLAN OR GO TO JAIL".
It's been over for some time. My state forces me to exercise commerce and pick an auto insurance company. Many other do as well.
AUTO INSURANCE is a wholly different subject SINCE you drive on PUBLIC ROADWAYS and is NOT germain to this discussion. NICE try at deflection but NO SALE.
The for almost 7 decades the federal government has forced you to donate to social security. Thank goodness.
So YOU subscribe to MONEY being forcefully TAKEN from you at the FORCE of a GUN when the Government will tel you that you have NO RIGHT to the money they've FORCED you to contribute...and the FED gives NO Guarantee that YOU will ever SEE that MONEY. They instead have spent it on other things? Smoothe MOVE EX-LAX. You've Bought the Line. Enjoy that HOOK in your JAW courtesy of the FED.
How long on Medicare and Medicaid?
BOTH BROKE, and NOW the FED courtesy of the HOUSE BILL will discontinue BOTH, and meld it into an even LARGER prick up the ASS of the Taxpayer at the expense of the many seniors that depend upon it...no matter it is insolvent/BROKE. Another SMOOTHE MOVE on ya...eh? (YOU MUST BE SO PROUD TO BE FUCKING SENOIORS AND TAXPAYERS that will have NO CHOICE)?
No Longer? When did it ever cease being one? EXPLAIN?This is no longer a Constitutional issue just like the right of Louisiana to declare independence is no longer a Constitutional issue.
The T
Quote: Originally Posted by Toronado3800 View Post
that general welfare thing was used to get South Carolina back and opened a whole can of worms. If you agree Alabama isn't part of the Union then this is a valid discussion.
What "General Welfare" thing do you mean? Spill it moron.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That general welfare T. It comes up in a few discussions on big government.
HINT? It isn't your Marxist Idea of it, Nor what's been going on for Decades. The Founders spoke of it...but I don't suspect YOU will attempt to educate yourself of the Founders' IDEA...Let me KNOW if I can assist in further EDUCATING your DUMBASS.
HINT? It isn't your Marxist Idea of it, Nor what's been going on for Decades. The Founders spoke of it...but I don't suspect YOU will attempt to educate yourself of the Founders' IDEA...Let me KNOW if I can assist in further EDUCATING your DUMBASS.
Ok, Educate me in your view. Seems you admit your view is contrary to the dominate view of the last 70 years. Maybe it needs posted.
Are you also saying the government doesn't have the power to take back states which leave the Union because the Constitution didn't specifically grant it?
If you can provide a court backed idea for me to not have my mandated auto liability insurance it would save me some money.
oh, and I do agree with mandated coverage. Not because I care about anyone's ability to get a new kidney and live but because I don't want them trying to change their mind at the last moment. Or worse, have their rotting corpses stinking up my front yard.
HINT? It isn't your Marxist Idea of it, Nor what's been going on for Decades. The Founders spoke of it...but I don't suspect YOU will attempt to educate yourself of the Founders' IDEA...Let me KNOW if I can assist in further EDUCATING your DUMBASS.
Ok, Educate me in your view. Seems you admit your view is contrary to the dominate view of the last 70 years. Maybe it needs posted.
Are you also saying the government doesn't have the power to take back states which leave the Union because the Constitution didn't specifically grant it?
If you can provide a court backed idea for me to not have my mandated auto liability insurance it would save me some money.
Auto insurance is easy, Don't own a car. Your choice.
[FOUNDERS=CRIMINALS]
oh, and I do agree with mandated coverage. Not because I care about anyone's ability to get a new kidney and live but because I don't want them trying to change their mind at the last moment. Or worse, have their rotting corpses stinking up my front yard.
and some day for sure your rotting stinking corpse will stink up someones elses front yard. or rot in a morgue after you go into renal shutdown. count on it. sure as hell. guaranteed. we're counting the days
Tipping the bottle a bit early, eh T? (or have you simply never stopped?)
and some day for sure your rotting stinking corpse will stink up someones elses front yard. or rot in a morgue after you go into renal shutdown. count on it. sure as hell. guaranteed. we're counting the days
This poster was an IDIOT for making such a statement. I think he/she/IT knows it by now...but then sometimes it takes one to force the truth on them as YOU have.
It leaves them feeling...well(?) STUPID
well health care is easy then. Hide in the mountains of Montana and don't go to the hospital when your gall bladder hurts.Auto insurance is easy, Don't own a car. Your choice.
and some day for sure your rotting stinking corpse will stink up someones elses front yard. or rot in a morgue after you go into renal shutdown. count on it. sure as hell. guaranteed. we're counting the days
This poster was an IDIOT for making such a statement. I think he/she/IT knows it by now...but then sometimes it takes one to force the truth on them as YOU have.
It leaves them feeling...well(?) STUPID
wow, what a mean spirited group we have here. Now I'm pro gun / pro choice / pro military / pro regulation / pro social security - stick in the mud - keep your religion out of my face kinda fella.
Funny in tough economic times I get called liberal more than when I was laughing at the pointlessness of the assault weapon ban.
Never have I been on a board with such out right hostility.
I noticed a change in journalism school during the 90's. Everyone went from wanting to give a voice to the helpless to wanting to yell on the radio. Maybe it spread to the internet. I fear this is how a blackish man with a Muslim sounding name got elected over a war hero in post 9-11 America.
well health care is easy then. Hide in the mountains of Montana and don't go to the hospital when your gall bladder hurts.Auto insurance is easy, Don't own a car. Your choice.
I used to respect you.
I used to respect you.
Ah, no you didn't. But that's ok. You're just words on a screen.
I've seen good arguments made on both sides of this issue. I do think the ones that fall on the side of it being Constitutional are compelling. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, because I'm sure it will be challenged.I have had the chance to read a little bit of the posts and what a few don't seem to understand is that the issue of Social Security and Medicare as to it's constitutionality is not the same as mandates when it comes to current healthcare legislation. The USSC in 1930's settled that in a string of cases that were before the court when it sided with the Hamilton view what Govt. authority should be rather than that of the father of the constitution Madison. The issue of mandates however when it comes to using taxes as a methind of compelling the purchase of a good or service or as a condition of being borin in the United States or being a citizen is a seperate issue and and is not settled. There are many articles from the CBO,CMS, WSJ, many educational institutions, going back to the early 1990's when the Clinton Administration tried to do the same thing. So no, this issue is far from settled and won't be until it gets to the Court, if it were to be found to be Constitutional , then from this point forward, Congress can use taxes not only as a method to collect income to support it's constitutionally mandated duties but as a device to compel the citizens of the nation to comply with its wishes. Let's say for example, a Republican Congress mandates the purchase by each state of at least 2 additional nuclear power plants, well considering that it is for the General Welfare using the logic as applied in the healthcare bill, and according to the comments presented here, all perfectly within the scope of their power regardless of what any environmental lobby might say. if you like switch nuclear for coal. So no this portion is the bill is not constitutional by any stretch of the imagination even though I can understand why it is in the bill. If it were not there then there goes the deficit neutral portion of the bill right out the window.
I've seen good arguments made on both sides of this issue. I do think the ones that fall on the side of it being Constitutional are compelling. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, because I'm sure it will be challenged.I have had the chance to read a little bit of the posts and what a few don't seem to understand is that the issue of Social Security and Medicare as to it's constitutionality is not the same as mandates when it comes to current healthcare legislation. The USSC in 1930's settled that in a string of cases that were before the court when it sided with the Hamilton view what Govt. authority should be rather than that of the father of the constitution Madison. The issue of mandates however when it comes to using taxes as a methind of compelling the purchase of a good or service or as a condition of being borin in the United States or being a citizen is a seperate issue and and is not settled. There are many articles from the CBO,CMS, WSJ, many educational institutions, going back to the early 1990's when the Clinton Administration tried to do the same thing. So no, this issue is far from settled and won't be until it gets to the Court, if it were to be found to be Constitutional , then from this point forward, Congress can use taxes not only as a method to collect income to support it's constitutionally mandated duties but as a device to compel the citizens of the nation to comply with its wishes. Let's say for example, a Republican Congress mandates the purchase by each state of at least 2 additional nuclear power plants, well considering that it is for the General Welfare using the logic as applied in the healthcare bill, and according to the comments presented here, all perfectly within the scope of their power regardless of what any environmental lobby might say. if you like switch nuclear for coal. So no this portion is the bill is not constitutional by any stretch of the imagination even though I can understand why it is in the bill. If it were not there then there goes the deficit neutral portion of the bill right out the window.
