Supreme Court here we come....

[jillian]

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.

i'm afraid i don't see it as any different from forcing people to carry auto insurance. you're not forcing anyone to have or not have treatment.

i've seen this argument before... i don't see it going real far.

 

[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.

i'm afraid i don't see it as any different from forcing people to carry auto insurance. you're not forcing anyone to have or not have treatment.

i've seen this argument before... i don't see it going real far.

jillian, easy answer to that, two things, one is that auto insurance is a choice made by the individual to own and operate a car and as such as a requirement for doing so that person must carry auto insurance. Those laws are STATE laws and wholly consistant with the 10th Amendment. The other issue is that those individuals that choose NOT to own or operate a car are NOT subject to ANY mandatory automobile insurance laws. The basic premise that auto insurace and health insurace mandates are the same is inccorect. If they were the same, then mandatory insurance would be the same in that those who do not carry health insurance would NOT be subject to ANY taxes or penalties because the service or COMMERCE in this case because there is no commerce.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

i'm afraid i don't see it as any different from forcing people to carry auto insurance. you're not forcing anyone to have or not have treatment.

i've seen this argument before... i don't see it going real far.

Jillian....no one forces you to buy a car in order to live in the united states. If you do buy a car you must get insurance for that car.

However I dont have a choice with this health insurance bill, I can't choose to not buy insurance from a private insurance company. The government is legislating that I MUST buy private health insurance or face fines/jail time. The only way I can opt out is to leave the country or die.

You dont see the difference between buying insurance for a car if you choose to excercise the priveledge to drive and being forced to buy health insurance? C'mon i know that after reading my short post you see what you missed before.

 

[Polk]

I actually agree with Plymco and Navy that the analogy to auto insurance isn't really relevant (for the reason they noted). Note: that still doesn't make their claims of unconstitutionality correct.

 

[Toronado3800]

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

One of my neighbors is uninsured because he's a Christian Scientist. The fellow is pretty cool really. Just his faith waivers every so often like when he stuck the sawzall through his hand and went to go get stitches. I worry about what will happen if he gets some awful disease. Poor fella owns his home out right so even that can be taken from him if he ever needs chemo.

Another guy down the street w/o insurance is between jobs. He just can't afford this gap COBRA type coverage.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

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.

i'm afraid i don't see it as any different from forcing people to carry auto insurance. you're not forcing anyone to have or not have treatment.

i've seen this argument before... i don't see it going real far.

The government has just ordered you to buy Coke instead of Pepsi? Your thoughts?

 

[FA_Q2]

^ No, that is way off. It is like the government saying you MUST buy a can of soda each day or be fined. The type of soda is your choice. That makes this less wrong even if it is still wrong

 

[Navy1960]

I actually agree with Plymco and Navy that the analogy to auto insurance isn't really relevant (for the reason they noted). Note: that still doesn't make their claims of unconstitutionality correct.

We will soon see Polk as there are many efforts in progress moving in that direction. In fact with the advent of recent amendments to the bill violates the Uniformity clause in the consitution.

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

"It was to cut off all undue preferences of one state over another in the regulation of subjects affecting their common interests. Unless duties, imposts, and excises were uniform, the grossest and most oppressive inequalities, vitally affecting the pursuits and employments of the people of different states, might exist" Justice Story

Further if the mandate for purchasing healthcare is found to be constitutional, then by that measure, congress will have been given a NEW power never before granted under the consitution and will be given unlimited power to legislate under the commerce clause. What seems to be lost on some is our form of Govt. is one of enumerated powers and is a limited form of Republican Government. If mandates are constitutional then that limitation is removed. As Interstate commerce will then be extended to mean human beings themselves and not the business or goods and services they engage in which the clause is actually meant to regulate. It really is a simple concept, if one chooses not to engage in the commerce, i.e. the purcahse of healthcare they are NOT engaging in the commerce and are therefor not subject to it's regulations. However, under this new meaning the person themselves are the commerce.

 

[Polk]

Using that standard, all fine is unconstitutional because those who don't break the law don't have to pay it.

 

[Navy1960]

A fine as a condition of citizenship is unconstitutional under the Constitution and has little if anything to do with interstate commerce because it presupposes a person is now a good or service as part of a an interstate transaction to be taxed.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I actually agree with Plymco and Navy that the analogy to auto insurance isn't really relevant (for the reason they noted). Note: that still doesn't make their claims of unconstitutionality correct.

It appears unconstitutional to me but I could be wrong polk.

I'm sure we will find out.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I actually agree with Plymco and Navy that the analogy to auto insurance isn't really relevant (for the reason they noted). Note: that still doesn't make their claims of unconstitutionality correct.

We will soon see Polk as there are many efforts in progress moving in that direction. In fact with the advent of recent amendments to the bill violates the Uniformity clause in the consitution.

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

"It was to cut off all undue preferences of one state over another in the regulation of subjects affecting their common interests. Unless duties, imposts, and excises were uniform, the grossest and most oppressive inequalities, vitally affecting the pursuits and employments of the people of different states, might exist" Justice Story

Further if the mandate for purchasing healthcare is found to be constitutional, then by that measure, congress will have been given a NEW power never before granted under the consitution and will be given unlimited power to legislate under the commerce clause. What seems to be lost on some is our form of Govt. is one of enumerated powers and is a limited form of Republican Government. If mandates are constitutional then that limitation is removed. As Interstate commerce will then be extended to mean human beings themselves and not the business or goods and services they engage in which the clause is actually meant to regulate. It really is a simple concept, if one chooses not to engage in the commerce, i.e. the purcahse of healthcare they are NOT engaging in the commerce and are therefor not subject to it's regulations. However, under this new meaning the person themselves are the commerce.

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

"It was to cut off all undue preferences of one state over another in the regulation of subjects affecting their common interests.

That specific language makes this bill unconstitutional. The bill gives preferential treatment to some states in the manager's marks....for example in the bill nebraska and montana residents who have blue cross/blue shield and mutual of omaha are exempt from the new taxes being imposed on health insurance plans.

In florida the citizens with Medicare Advantage get to keep what is being cut out of the plan for the other 49 states.


That is not uniformity in excises throughout the united states. It shows a preference to some states over others.

 

[Navy1960]

Article I Sec. 9

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Article I sec. 9 Clause 5

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State

5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

It's CLEAR this bill has many hurdles to overcome in order for it to survive and stay law in it's current form. Further the Court would have to bend the constitution a long way in order to justify many parts of this current bill.

 

[Old Rocks]

In the nations where health care is working well, such as Japan and France, all citizens have to be covered. How this is accomplished varies with each nation.

It is time that we look at what the other nations are doing, and what the outcomes are, and design a real health care system that fits us. Taiwan did that. We can also do that. But merely digging in your heals and screaming socialism will accomplish nothing other than putting your viewpoint outside of the real debate.

Simple fact. They pay less and get better results than does our system. Theirs is better. So what is the problem with changing ours?

 

[Navy1960]

Answer Rocks, there is nothing wrong with reforming healthcare, however OUR form of Govt. as you well know is nothing like the nations you mentioned and in order to reform our healthcare system we must work within the framework of our form of Govt. , otherwise we have subverted that form of Govt. to reflect something it was never intended to be. That is the basic problem here, you see, many people look to Europe as some desired form of Govt. that we should emulate. I submit to you that our nation has survived for almost 250 years because we have NOT emulated europe and the people that founded this Govt. understood that very well. We have within our framework the ability to reform healthcare , very much so, but to tear down that framework of Govt., as a means to reform healthcare is to subvert the very form of Govt. we all live under. I would ask my democrat friends this question, on major legislation like Medicare, Social Security, and others, there was ALWAYS a large bi-partisan vote on the matter that was reflective of the will of the American people. On this one however, you have one party imposing it's will on the American people even though in a lot of cases they were at odds with the American people as well. So how then is this bill reflective of anything that could be remotly close to reform? I've given this some thought, and do you know why the mandates cannot be removed from the bill? There are 2 reason(s), the very insurance companies that many in the Democrat party hate so much have stated that no public program will work without forced participation and they will oppose it. The other is that from a budget standpoint the whole concept of the bill falls apart without it. Funny thing it, if you removed those mandates from the bill, and the sweetheart deals, you would have a LOT easier time selling it to the American public.