Court rules health care bill is Constitutional

[Micky G. Jagger]

Va. judge dismisses challenge to Obama health care - Yahoo! News

I was under the impression that interstate Health care is a no go, as against the law. That each individual Company has to create itself inside each State and can not offer premiums based on another States record.

If so then there is NO interstate Commerce involved in Health Care Insurance. And clearly the US Government has no legal right nor Constitutional right to pass any laws dealing with it using the Commerce clause.

It's well established that Congress has power to regulate insurance, dude.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

This is GREAT news!!!!

I can't wait until we get our uniforms and little hats with the red star in the middle

You sound like one of those kooks who believe that the regulation of anything is communism.

 

[Greenbeard]

There were some exceptions stated in that bill - can't remember exactly what the "Louisiana Purchase" entailed except a shit load of money for a "yes" vote,

What you're talking about is a correction to the state's FMAP (the percentage of its Medicaid expenses paid for by the federal government). The formula for calculating a state's FMAP is based on per capita income but in the wake of Katrina that calculation has become skewed for Louisiana. The "Louisiana Purchase" (i.e. "SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER") adjusts the calculation so that aid money to the state isn't counted the same way as personal income. The complaint that Louisiana was being shortchanged by a formula not designed to handle a Katrina-esque situation is legitimate and Republican governor Bobby Jindal was making that argument a year and a half ago:

NEW ORLEANS – Today, Governor Bobby Jindal held a press conference to highlight the critical need for urgent federal action to fix Louisiana’s projected decrease in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) due to a flawed calculation that includes temporary economic activity due explicitly to the recovery from two major hurricanes, which will cost the state hundreds of millions of additional dollars unless the calculation is fixed. Prior to the press conference, Governor Jindal had a meeting with U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu to discuss a solution for the state.

Louisiana’s impending dramatic decrease in federal funding is due to the federal formula’s faulty calculation of sources of income in the state, including insurance and Road Home payments after the 2005 storms. From 2005 to 2007, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Louisiana's per-capita income is reported to have increased by 42 percent – a dramatic, sudden increase which will drop the state’s federal Medicaid funding.

Governor Jindal said, “It’s critical that we fix the FMAP rate or Louisianians will suffer the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars all due to a faulty calculation by the federal government which has absurdly included recovery dollars as personal income. The people of Louisiana have been devastated by four major storms in just over three years and they’re fighting to get back on their feet, and should not be victimized again by their own government. This formula will put severe pressure on health care funding, higher education funding and other key Louisiana priorities. I want to thank Senator Landrieu for her assistance and leadership in working with our delegation to correct this situation.”

Historically, Louisiana’s federal match for Medicaid has ranged from approximately 70 percent to 73 percent, with very small variations from year-to-year. But, within the next year, Louisiana will face the largest decrease of FMAP in the nation – a decrease almost twice that of the state with the next largest decrease, North Dakota.​

Sometimes it's worth finding out the other side of a story.

And why exactly is the cabinet required to be vetted by the Senate and these guys are not? Further please name all the people Bush appointed to high office without Senate approval and I do not mean recess appointments.

This is where it gets muddled. Are we talking about "czars" or people not vetted by the Senate? Some of the people who get listed as czars were in fact confirmed by the Senate (e.g. the TARP czar); others hold positions authorized in legislation that don't require Senate confirmation (e.g. the current health IT czar). If you're just talking about use of the nebulous (to the point of meaningless) word "czar," FactCheck counts 35 people referred to as czar in the previous administration to 32 in the current one.

If you want to identify which are "appointed...without Senate approval" you'll have to go through person by person and evaluate that. For example, President Bush created the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology through an executive order in 2004. The National Coordinator ("health IT czar") was appointed by him to lead an office he created using his executive power. In 2009, ONC was officially created by Congress by the HITECH Act, which also said "The Office shall be headed by a National Coordinator who shall be appointed by the Secretary and shall report directly to the Secretary." So now that "czar" has been authorized by Congress to exist and be appointed by the Secretary of HHS. We know, of course, that this is directly sanctioned by the Constitution, which tells us "Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, ... in the Heads of Departments"

If you want to know where the authority is coming from for various executive branch positions, you're going to have to sift through and follow those links case-by-case.

... I see no Article that supports your statement of the executive branch allowing for the "establishment" of Czars, under the Constitution. If you care to show me the Constitutional Article by which you derive your facts concerning Czars, please state it for me in your next reply.

Again, you have to figure out what you mean by "czar." Lots of "czars" are in fact created by Congress via legislation or are Senate confirmable positions to begin with. If you want to get into people who essentially act as advisers without specific legislative backing, you have to be a little more specific. For example, do you consider the Chief of Staff to be a "czar" because he can influence policy (via advice to the President)? Is ("Senior Adviser") David Axelrod a czar?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I was under the impression that interstate Health care is a no go, as against the law. That each individual Company has to create itself inside each State and can not offer premiums based on another States record.

If so then there is NO interstate Commerce involved in Health Care Insurance. And clearly the US Government has no legal right nor Constitutional right to pass any laws dealing with it using the Commerce clause.

It's well established that Congress has power to regulate insurance, dude.

I have serious doubts that our Founders would desire a government that "dictates" it's power over the people, simply look at what Jefferson had written about government power with regard to the people (see his quote below). People should have the individual liberties to choose what they desire to have, especially Health Care, not through a bully tactic of penalties towards those who don't conform to it's whim. That's what it clearly is through the manner to which it is used, a penalty ... not a tax. There is nothing "Constitutional" about that, nor can I find justification in what our Founders have written to support it. Rather this is about rigid "conformity" by a government, to gain more power and control over an individual's ability to have a say in Health Care decisions, through absolute bureaucracy!!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Where in the Constitution is there a limitation on the size of the Executive Branch? There are also no limits on the number of Congressional Staff or Supreme Court Clerks

Since you would rather avoid looking at the Constitution yourself, I will site the article section for you with regard to offices filled under the Executive Branch:

ARTICLE II , Section 2 , Clause 2:
..he shall nominate, and by and with the consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

... I see no Article that supports your statement of the executive branch allowing for the "establishment" of Czars, under the Constitution. If you care to show me the Constitutional Article by which you derive your facts concerning Czars, please state it for me in your next reply.

but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such [/B]inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

So whats your point?

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
- Thomas Jefferson

I couldn't say it any better than what one of our Founding Fathers has already foreseen. Those who also believe as he did, in a more limited form of Federal Government, can truly grasp the wisdom behind that statement.

A top heavy government with ego as it's power, will soon fall to the devastation of all.

 

[zzzz]

Yet how many who gain office really try to downsize the regulations and laws? How many try to reduce the very power they inherit on taking office? I hear many Republicans talk the talk but don't walk the walk once they gain power. Power corrupts people, I guess it is human nature and very few can resist the temptation of power. Yes there are a few who do and attempt to restrict the government but they are far and few, too few to really make a difference.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't think you'll find anyone who honestly thinks the feds don't have the authority to intervene in the health insurance market.

I'd be interested to see the article section and clause of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to force people to buy health insurance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can government make you buy a Chevy Volt?

Can the government force you to vote?