Supreme Court here we come....

[Zander]

in my state you are required to have car ins.....whats the difference here?

you aren't mandated to own a car! You can't not own your body!

your right Willow....did not think that one through....

Also, Auto Insurance is protection for "the other guy", in case you damage their property.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is going to come a time, and it's coming real soon, that the government will be collecting taxes for this Health Care Reform crap. They will start collecting the taxes long before this case is heard in the Supreme Court. I would just like to know if I will be paid interest for the taxes the government collected illegally to fund this nonsense when they return my tax money to me.

Fellow, you already pay for health care. If you have health care at work, do you think that you are getting it free? Were it not for the money that you company pays the insurance company, your check would be a good deal larger.

So what is the differance if you pay for it in taxes? After all, some countries do it that way, others do it in other ways. However, all of the other industrial countries cover all of their citizens, and all pay less for their health care than we do. And most have far better outcomes, average life spans, infant mortality, ect.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, I can see that a Supreme Court challenge might have the outcome of morphing this into a real single payer system. That would be the best of outcomes.

 

[Navy1960]

Rocks if as the CBO see's it and the Court strikes down a mandate, then the cost savings formula of the bill gets tossed out the window and it becomes a massive cost burden. By that time however, the Govt. will have collected years of taxes on this and have enrolled millions on Medicaid and as such would be a very big mess to undo and knowing that it won't be. That in my mind is the real reason congress would pass such a mandate, they are not so dumb to understand that such a mandate will not survive a court challenge at least I hope not. In my opinion this issue of mandates will be struck down and in the mean time someone needs to advocate for a better way of paying for the huge mess.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Well, I can see that a Supreme Court challenge might have the outcome of morphing this into a real single payer system. That would be the best of outcomes.

We agree on how the process will work but the only difference is you think single payer will be better for all americans than just reforming the insurance industry and I think small, directed reforms of the insurance industry (such as not being able to kick someone off insurance when they get sick) will be better than letting the government do it all with single payer.


How do you feel about the language in the current bill that requires all americans to purchase health insurance from private insurers or face fines/jailtime?

If you think thats ok do you believe in My Body, My Choice?

If yes to both of those how do you reconcile those two contradicting views?

 

[Toronado3800]

Also, Auto Insurance is protection for "the other guy", in case you damage their property.

I think of it from a different point of view. Imagine my uninsured neighbors who show up at the hospital expecting treatment for whatever serious ailment they have. Do we throw them out on the street like a pure capitalist doctrine would say we have the right to do? No, we subsidize their treatment. Any money we can collect from "them" from the time they work at McDonalds on is a plus.

Constitutionally states rights went out the door when the Supreme Court did not return the Confederacy to Jefferson Davis.

Keep in mind I'm not very pro-health reform, just making discussion.

 

[Toronado3800]

How do you feel about the language in the current bill that requires all americans to purchase health insurance from private insurers or face fines/jailtime?

If you think thats ok do you believe in My Body, My Choice?

If yes to both of those how do you reconcile those two contradicting views?

My body, my choice. Interesting, my pro-choice self likes that one.

How about any time after the age of 18 ppl can sign yourself out of any of the subsidized Medi-programs. Then if/when they get sick so be it.

I'm all for the religious freedom of Christian Scientists and whoever.

I still don't know where those dying a slow death from whatever will be housed but I'm actually for this.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Also, Auto Insurance is protection for "the other guy", in case you damage their property.

I think of it from a different point of view. Imagine my uninsured neighbors who show up at the hospital expecting treatment for whatever serious ailment they have. Do we throw them out on the street like a pure capitalist doctrine would say we have the right to do? No, we subsidize their treatment. Any money we can collect from "them" from the time they work at McDonalds on is a plus.

Constitutionally states rights went out the door when the Supreme Court did not return the Confederacy to Jefferson Davis.

Keep in mind I'm not very pro-health reform, just making discussion.

I will discuss with you but i need the answer to one question before I can answer you (i need more information about my uninsured neighbor).

Why is my neighbor uninsured? Be warned your answer could begin a LONG discussion of short posts

 

[Harry Dresden]

And most have far better outcomes, average life spans, infant mortality, ect.

Rocks you have been told this a hundred times already,yet you keep droning on....LIFE SPANS...have more to do with the person then the system.....you can have the medical science of Star Trek,but if you dont take care of yourself........Dr. Crusher cant do a dam thing for you.....many Americans have great health care....yet they drop dead from heart attacks,have many preventable diseases,eat like pigs,are very sedentary,dont go and use their health care when things start showing up,wait until its too late,some Drink and smoke way to much,eat way to much Sugar,especially our overweight kids who are geared for Sugar.....the list goes on.......

 

[Polk]

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Is Congress going through the ordeal of trying to enact health care reform only to have one of the main pillars -- requiring individuals to obtain insurance -- declared unconstitutional? An interesting debate for a constitutional law seminar. In the real world, not a big worry.

"This issue is not serious," says Walter Dellinger, acting solicitor general during the Clinton administration.

But it's being taken seriously in some quarters, so it's worth explaining where the Constitution grants Congress the authority to impose an individual mandate. There are two short answers: the power to regulate interstate commerce and the power to tax.

...

But the individual mandate is central to the larger effort to reform the insurance market. Congress may not be empowered to order everyone to go shopping to boost the economy. Yet health insurance is so central to health care, and the individual mandate so entwined with the effort to reform the system, that this seems like a different, perhaps unique, case.

Congress clearly has authority to, in effect, require employees to purchase health insurance for their old age by imposing a payroll tax to fund Medicare. It's odd for the same conservatives bemoaning a government takeover of health care to complain about requiring that people turn to the private marketplace.

Which brings us to the alternative source of congressional authority, the "Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises."

The individual mandate is to be administered through the tax code: On their forms, taxpayers will have to submit evidence of adequate insurance or, unless they qualify for a hardship exemption, pay a penalty.

Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin likens this to Congress raising money for environmental programs by taxing polluters. "Congress is entitled to raise revenues from persons whose actions specifically contribute to a social problem that Congress seeks to remedy through new government programs," he concludes.

Balkin cites a 1950 Supreme Court case upholding a tax on marijuana distributors. "It is beyond serious question that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities taxed," the court said. "The principle applies even though the revenue obtained is obviously negligible, or the revenue purpose of the tax may be secondary."

RealClearPolitics - Health Care Mandate is Constitutional

 

[Polk]

And most have far better outcomes, average life spans, infant mortality, ect.

Rocks you have been told this a hundred times already,yet you keep droning on....LIFE SPANS...have more to do with the person then the system.....you can have the medical science of Star Trek,but if you dont take care of yourself........Dr. Crusher cant do a dam thing for you.....many Americans have great health care....yet they drop dead from heart attacks,have many preventable diseases,eat like pigs,are very sedentary,dont go and use their health care when things start showing up,wait until its too late,some Drink and smoke way to much,eat way to much Sugar,especially our overweight kids who are geared for Sugar.....the list goes on.......

That only works as an explanation if you think Americans are specially prone to being unhealthy eating, not exercising, and drug use.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One other thing of note here Jon, is the very mandates that are in the bill will result in an economic windfall for the very insurance companies that many have spent the last several months turning into villans. I fail to understand how supporters of this bill cannot see the simple truth of a bill that mandates that as a matter of citizenship people will now be required to purchase a service from a private company. If this does not violate all the principles this nation was founded upon I do not know what does.

in my state you are required to have car ins.....whats the difference here?

You are NOT required to own or operate a car.

 

[Navy1960]

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Is Congress going through the ordeal of trying to enact health care reform only to have one of the main pillars -- requiring individuals to obtain insurance -- declared unconstitutional? An interesting debate for a constitutional law seminar. In the real world, not a big worry.

"This issue is not serious," says Walter Dellinger, acting solicitor general during the Clinton administration.

But it's being taken seriously in some quarters, so it's worth explaining where the Constitution grants Congress the authority to impose an individual mandate. There are two short answers: the power to regulate interstate commerce and the power to tax.

...

But the individual mandate is central to the larger effort to reform the insurance market. Congress may not be empowered to order everyone to go shopping to boost the economy. Yet health insurance is so central to health care, and the individual mandate so entwined with the effort to reform the system, that this seems like a different, perhaps unique, case.

Congress clearly has authority to, in effect, require employees to purchase health insurance for their old age by imposing a payroll tax to fund Medicare. It's odd for the same conservatives bemoaning a government takeover of health care to complain about requiring that people turn to the private marketplace.

Which brings us to the alternative source of congressional authority, the "Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises."

The individual mandate is to be administered through the tax code: On their forms, taxpayers will have to submit evidence of adequate insurance or, unless they qualify for a hardship exemption, pay a penalty.

Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin likens this to Congress raising money for environmental programs by taxing polluters. "Congress is entitled to raise revenues from persons whose actions specifically contribute to a social problem that Congress seeks to remedy through new government programs," he concludes.

Balkin cites a 1950 Supreme Court case upholding a tax on marijuana distributors. "It is beyond serious question that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities taxed," the court said. "The principle applies even though the revenue obtained is obviously negligible, or the revenue purpose of the tax may be secondary."

RealClearPolitics - Health Care Mandate is Constitutional

Yes we are in the real world, so keeping that in mind, ...

The Supreme Court construes the commerce power broadly. In the most recent Commerce Clause case, Gonzales v. Raich (2005) , the court ruled that Congress can even regulate the cultivation of marijuana for personal use so long as there is a rational basis to believe that such "activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce."

But there are important limits. In United States v. Lopez (1995), for example, the Court invalidated the Gun Free School Zones Act because that law made it a crime simply to possess a gun near a school. It did not "regulate any economic activity and did not contain any requirement that the possession of a gun have any connection to past interstate activity or a predictable impact on future commercial activity." Of course, a health-care mandate would not regulate any "activity," such as employment or growing pot in the bathroom, at all. Simply being an American would trigger it.

Health-care backers understand this and—like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen insisting that some hills are valleys—have framed the mandate as a "tax" rather than a regulation. Under Sen. Max Baucus's (D., Mont.) most recent plan, people who do not maintain health insurance for themselves and their families would be forced to pay an "excise tax" of up to $1,500 per year—roughly comparable to the cost of insurance coverage under the new plan.

But Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a "tax" that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by "taxing" anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables.

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey: Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional - WSJ.com

 

[Navy1960]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4vsSgBYp0M[/ame]

 

[Si modo]

This bill is such a clusterfuck. Leave it to Congress to make it one.

 

[Navy1960]

David Rivkin is very correct, without limits, and if the tax and spend clause, or the commerce clause is now an unlimted power, then why have any other powers in the consitution. In fact why even have a 10th Amendment. For example, under this type of consitutional logic, the Govt. would need not pass a bill for cash for clunkers, they would simply pass a bill REQUIRING Americans to purchase a GM car or pay a penalty, or for that matter, have a blood test once a year, etc etc etc. OUR form of Govt. is NOT a UNLIMTED POWERS form of Govt. and the powers specified in the constitution LIMIT the Govt. without those specified limits our form of Govt. is no longer what it has been for the last 200 plus years and the constitution would be worthless.

 

[Navy1960]

If Congress were to invoke its Commerce Clause authority to support legislation mandating individual
health insurance coverage, such an action would have to contend with recent Supreme Court precedent
limiting unfettered use of Commerce Clause authority to police individual behavior that does not
constitute interstate commerce: United States v. Lopez,10 invalidating the application of the Gun Free
School Zones Act of 1990 to individuals and United States v. Morrison,11 invalidating certain portions of
the Violence Against Women Act. In the case of a mandate to purchase health insurance or face a tax or
penalty, Congress would have to explain how not doing something – not buying insurance and not
seeking health care services – implicated interstate commerce.
http://www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20090710_Individual_Mandates.pdf

 

[Polk]

The difference being is that neither of those things have a direct impact on interstate commerce. This does.

 

[veritas]

So basically, the gov't is forcing people into contracts. Contracts are agreements. I am not in agreement. There's so many ways this can be assailed it isn't funny.

 

[Navy1960]

The difference being is that neither of those things have a direct impact on interstate commerce. This does.

Everyone of them has an impact on Interstate Commerce and as people are NOT property they themselves are NOT subject to the Interstate Commerce Clause.