E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy NBC's Pete Williams
A legal move Monday by the Obama administration greatly increases the odds that the US Supreme Court will take up the contentious issue of the new health care law during the court term that starts next week.
And if it does, that would mean a ruling from the Supreme Court by next spring -- as the presidential campaign is well underway.
The Justice Department had to decide what to do about the highest profile decision yet on the constitutionality of the law's requirement that virtually all Americans buy health insurance. Acting in a lawsuit filed by 26 states, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled last month that Congress went too far in passing the law.
The government could have asked the full Atlanta appeals court to re-hear the case, which would have meant a further delay. But today, the Justice Department told the appeals court it will not seek that re-hearing. That means the Obama administration plans to appeal to the US Supreme Court directly. Most legal experts agree that the Supreme Court would almost certainly grant that request, even though other appeals courts are still hearing legal challenges to the health care law.
Leave a Comment:
Great.
Let's get it on and decided on way or the other, once and for all.
I applaud the gov./Obama's decision to get this done.
Agreed.
Delaying would cloud the issue in the heat of the election.
Let it stand on it's own.
And - Let it stand.
The very last thing Obama needs right now is this very unpopular bill coming back to the forefront.
The "Doctor Fix" and double counting of cutting has now been highlighted. Not even the Amy's of the world can now say this does anything but add massive amounts of new debt. I think the "Doctor Fix" ahas passed, and the rates adjusted back up, so that increase in costs has to be factored in, not if, ands or buts.
Scratch that, of course Amy will, while at the same time walking across those hot coals for Obama.
Reasonable people and particularly the independents now or shortly will see, as we literally re-debate and re-litigate this monstrosity.
Really going to put all those dem Senators up for re-election to the screws.
Wow, great news and a great call.
That "very unpopular bill" will end up saving many from bankruptcy.
We don't need anymore lives ruined because of medical need.
Single payer will be the next addition to the ACA.
And, a 'clinic near you' transition to preventative health care is near.
Obama got this one right.
Might it save some from BK?
I think it would, but that's one hell of a price to pay for bankrupting the country.
Nothing is free, Richard, especially not health care.
Which falls under the heading of "TS kid". Like Bush's decision to invade Iraq, every politicians missteps will invariably come back to haunt them at re-election time.
I agree with those who say the question of this law violating the Constitution needs to be resolved sooner rather than later, regardless of the decision reached.
"Nothing is free, Richard, especially not health care."
True, Spanks.
But, it could be.
Of course, it would mean changing the social welfare/social warfare paradigm.
Spanky, I hope you click in on this thread again. Your students, who need an understanding of the SCOTUS ,are waiting for you much further down this thread.
The mandate was idiocy. I don't think Congress should be able to mandate that the US citizenry "buy" something.
the HCR bill should have been this:
Considering how much input the health insurance lobby had in devising the final bill, I wouldn't be surprised if the "mandate" wasn't put in on purpose as a means of making sure that it could/would be crushed.
I find it odd that people who tax other people through their wages to provide their health care do not want to help others pay for their health care. That is (sorry, no other way to spin it) called a hypocrite. It is the typical I've got mine, just try to get yours attitude of the Republican Party. It is the reason people form governments, to level the playing field.
LoL Joe and I were wrong. The President is a gambler, after all.
Of course, the Court could always put the breaks on itself, and wait to consolidate the other pending cases.
Then again, why would THIS Court do that?
Let the games begin.
@ Seriously -- EXACTLY. Except for 2, 3, and 4. Single-payer. Period.
Right on, the sooner this is tossed out the better.
ir12: "That's the reason people form governments, to level the playing fleld".
Boy, have you been mislead at some point in your life...you really think that it's the role of government to "level the playing field"?. You have no concept of what principles this country was founded on...and may I suggest that you actually read our constitution...you may learn something.
If we are required to carry liability insurance for our cars, why not give the American people an affortable health insurance plan. Its simple, the more affortable something is the more people will buy.
Gotta love how people who have never done a single, solitary thing to help me get to where I am in life are now cheering the governments efforts to force me to help them out. Because now that they're going to be the beneficiaries, that 'social compact' garbage they are so proud of spouting off about is damn important to them.
Positively nauseating. I'm glad I've got my exemption.
There is no way that this goes in Obama's favor in the supreme court.
Obama and the democrats had a super-majority when he was elected. Instead of creating jobs and keeping his promises that he campaigned on, he put all of his eggs in the health care basket and came up with the worst possible bill. An absolute bust! We would have been better off doing nothing. Remember Obama couldn't even get his own party to vote for the slimy healthcare bill. Obama had to sell his soul to get a majority vote. The only way he got it to pass was on an extremely rare procedural vote.
To this day no one knows exactly what the bill contains and how it will work exactly. Most all of the figures were wrong. He should have pushed for a single payer system but the lobbyist got to him and the democrats. We ended up with more job losses and a shocked corporate world that didn't want to hire due to many uncertainties.
Obama could have passed ANY law. He could have changed Washington like he promised. Instead he did everything opposite of what he promised and spent $Trillions with nothing to show for it... NOTHING.
Give us Clinton, Gore, Bush, ....anyone else! We cannot last another 4 years under Obama.
Seriously? No...Really?!
The mandate was idiocy. I don't think Congress should be able to mandate that the US citizenry "buy" something.
Why not? Who do you think pays for it every time an uninsured person visits a doctor or goes to the hospital? You and I do. I have a co-worker whose son was in an auto accident late last year. He was driving and lost control of his vehicle. One person died and he almost did to. After nine months of surgeries and rehilibitation he finally got out of the hospital. He had no auto insurance nor any health insurance. His bills are closing in on $1 million. He can't pay for it so who will?
Another friend of mine had his appendix taken out recently. He also doesn't have insurance nor the ability to pay the bills. So again, who do you think will pay for his hosptial time and for the doctors? I have no problem with the government requiring people to have insurance.
imwhitewolf
"I have no problem with the government requiring people to have insurance."
Maybe you can afford it. Many can't. I can't. It is all I can do to pay my mortgage of $1400/mo and necessities like food. I have no credit card debt or any other interest bearing loans. Not complaining but you need a reality check. I haven't had a job in 28 months and savings are going fast. Am I supposed to sell my house and live on the streets to make you happy so I can buy health insurance at nearly the cost of my mortgage?
Of course you are not in the same situation and probably get most of your health care paid for thru your employer. And of course you have no problem taxing people for what they can't afford because you already have yours.
I hope Scalia drives off a cliff with his sock puppet, Clarence Thomas's head in his lap. We need some liberals on the court.
These people who call Obama a socialist are idiots. They parrot the Fux News line and have no idea what a socialist really is. If Obama WAS a socialist on his first day in office he would have NATIONALIZED the oil companies. The next day he would have NATIONALIZED the health insurance industry. Then he would have taken the profits from the health insurance industry and the oil industry and used them to pay for universal national health care. You idiots calling Obama a socialist are @!$%#ing lucky that you have no, zero, zilch idea what a REAL socialist looks like !! Obama is a socialist like Sarah Palin is a member of Mensa.
Bob- I feel your pain, man. I was where you are right now about twelve years ago. On the plus side, as I understand it, you, in your circustances, wouldn't have to buy insurance. The government won't be able to enforce it on you if you don't have a job (tax penalty). The problem I have for people like you is that when you do get a new job, it is going to be harder for you to get back on your feet because you will have the added expenditure of paying for insurance, which will make life that much more rough for you, and I don't think that that is fair. It makes it really outrageous when you consider that this demand is coming from people who already have jobs and insurance, and they are just b*tching about not having more money for themselves, and want to change that by taking from the rest of us.
Hope things get better for you soon. :)
Bluelake- Obama may not be a socialist, but the healthcare mandate definitely is socialism. If you don't think so then you had better do some research into what socialism actually is.
I hope this does come up during Dirty Barry's campaign, when he needs to hide it the most. Pack your bags, POSOTUS, it's almost time to go back to your village in Kenya. They miss their idiot and his fat wife.
At #1.23 -- Son, demanding you buy Health Insurance FOR YOU is not Socialism, and no matter how much you hate Obama, it's not going to magically change the definition of Socialism.
Bluelake
"These people who call Obama a socialist are idiots. They parrot the Fux News line and have no idea what a socialist really is. If Obama WAS a socialist on his first day in office he would have NATIONALIZED the oil companies."
He has already nationalized 2 of the 3 American auto makers. The Government owns a huge stake in GM and Chrysler. Maybe you were unaware of that.
SG, I am not worried about it and certainly don't want any government handouts like those who voted for Obama and the rest of the wrong do. I am a survivor. I would take a job at McDonald's but at 58 and 35 years in engineering, even they won't hire me because they are afraid I would be gone as soon as something better comes along - but do they really think they a a career source? Who sets their sights on a minimum wage job as their last job?
In jobs I am skilled at, they only want kids fresh out of college, who they can mold into corporate puppets. But all of that is ok because I am a survivor, and with God's help, I will continue to survive. Those who look to government as some kind of god are enslaving themselves. They (government) are the ones destroying America. Those who depend on it are fools.
MJMullinII
At #1.23 -- "Son, demanding you buy Health Insurance FOR YOU is not Socialism, and no matter how much you hate Obama, it's not going to magically change the definition of Socialism."
Son? Does that mean you are Methuselah? I know who my father is and he would be 90 if still alive. If you depend on government for handouts, then you are a socialist.
Richard-348249
Hmmmmm, lemme guess, Constitutional Modernist? No, most likely a Constitutional Normative.
You do realize that the military is one of the few Constitutionally mandated responsibilities of our government under the Enumerated Powers, right?
There is no interpretation in the Constitution regarding social welfare. Please, do not embarrass yourself by associating it with the "General Welfare" clause. If you do, you're wrong.
A paradigm can no more exist in the Constitution than it can in the social sciences, thus any attempt at collusion or disunion of the two is impossible.
MJMullin- Don't talk to me like I'm your kid. My being forced to buy insurance subsidizes healthcare costs for everyone else. How hard is that to figure out? Or do you think that someone like me, who is healthy, and doesn't spend anything on healthcare, is going to get every last dime I put in back? By your very logic my buying health insurance would NOT lessen the costs for anyone else. How do you figure that?
Instead of trying to insult me, go educate yourself as to what socialism is instead of pretending that people who do not have insurance are automatically a burden on others. I pay my bills in CASH.
The bill that was passed is a boon to the profit-making health insurance industry. Obama knew it, and so did the fools who voted for it.
They want to force us into single-payer, as this con-job will otherwise bankrupt the nation.
And honestly, we need to do one or the other - either full on socialist single-payer, or free-market. Neither is the right solution though. The free market allows ruthless people to make deadly decisions for profit. The government is too corrupt and too easy to defraud.
For me - I don't really like insurance as a method to deliver healthcare. It sucks as long as a profit-motive is involved. Pay attention here - the best possible solution in my opinion is this - a single-payer, national system, managed 100% by a non-profit network. The non-profits should be setup at the state or county level, to best address the needs of their citizens. Small enough to manage.
Bottom line is that we live in a civilized society. We do not want our citizens dying in the street, or for lack of care. BUT, government only makes it a constant political football.
Like it or not, if we take politics and government out of the equation, we have a chance to build a system that is both manageable and functional. Otherwise, we are doomed to keep circling the drain, as our national political system is filled with fraud, abuse, incompetence, duplication, waste, corruption and con-men and women.
There is absolutely nothing in our constitution that could be interpreted as giving the federal government the right to force a person to buy something from a private company. For those who like to throw out car insurance as an example, they show their ignorance. Owning and driving a car are not a requirement or a right they are a privilege. You do not have to have car insurance because you do not have to have a car. Also, contrary to what people state, you actually do not need to have car insurance. States allow the alternative of posting a financial responsibility bond instead of having insurance, so you are not even forced to have insurance. In addition, while I do not see it as being a major point in the argument, it should also be noted that it is the states that have the requirement to have insurance or post a bond, not the federal government. As for the health insurance mandate, living can hardly be considered an option and life is actually a right guaranteed under the constitution. To require someone to have health insurance by the mere fact of being alive does not make it optional like car insurance, it makes it mandatory.
What makes this issue even ore critical to the whole health care debate is that the Obamacare law, unlike almost every other law on the books, does not have a severability clause. What this means is that if one part of the law is struck down, the entire law becomes invalid. This was done because it was the only way to get the insurance companies to go along with the law. Since the law eliminates preexisting condition exclusions from health insurance policies, the requirement for everyone to have insurance became key. Otherwise people could just wait until they got sick to buy insurance and have their costs covered. This would make it impossible for the insurance companies to stay in business. It would get to the point where only people whose health care bills exceeded their health insurance premiums would want to buy insurance. For this reason the elimination of preexisting condition exceptions had to be balanced with the requirement for everyone to have insurance. You need the healthy people who pay more in premiums than they cost the insurance company to balance those who cost the company more than the premiums they pay. This drove the requirement to have the law be an all or nothing deal.
iris - because driving and owning a car is an elective decision. Existing [and therefore being required to buy health insurance] is involuntary; nobody elects to be born and the alternative is suicide.
But the biggest problem with Obama's much vaunted [and greatly hated] health care reform, is that is does little to lower the cost of medical care, and if health care costs continue to rise at an annual rate of 6 to 8% then covering everybody, or even most people is just a silly pipe dream.
...and before you start talking of the purported savings to be realized in the future, let me say I'm from Massachusetts, where we adopted a similar [screwy] plan about 5 years ago. It has done nothing to hold the advance of medical care costs. All it did was add a new bureaucracy, a new entitlement program and new payers into the system. That just feeds the beast.
Stupid plan, whether it is constitutional or not.
BTW: I voted for Obama in 2008.
Spanky- "Great. Let's get it on and decided on way or the other, once and for all."
Agreed. It needs to be decided early so people/businesses can make necessary plans for the future.
The uncertainty for businesses would almost certainly impact hiring decisions.
Personally, I think requiring the 'individual mandate' went too far in trampling 'States Rights' (if the Federal Government can 'require' that you buy a product or service from a private (for profit) company, where does it stop?), but 'experts' on both sides have some good arguments.
I'm a little surprised because it will probably be a 'lose-lose' issue for Obama, but it was inevitable. If the mandate is upheld, it will inflame the majority of Americans that oppose it and who will end up paying more for health care. If it is rejected, it will be viewed as a defeat for Obama.
I suspect the Obama Administration took an informal poll of the entire appeals court and found that he would have lost anyway, so why pile on another loss.
Spanky.
Your delusion is still strong.
There is no double counting, unless you are talking about the adminstration's rhetorical double counting. The official score from the CBO, jr, was not double counted, dispite what cable news fed you.
Study up.
The doc fix was an issue well before the health care bill, and would have cost the same with, or without the health care bill.
Again, study up, jr.
Spanky.
Dispite the the projections you so willfully bought, the health care bill is not bankrupting the country. It remains to be seen what the bill will cost, but the official score was far from what you were fed, and continually repeat. Sorry jr.
In addition, what did bankrupt the country was the out of control spending from the GOP, and the recession.
So again, study up. The numbers don't lie. Cable news on the other hand....lol.
Roy Wilson.
There is a reason the majority of constitutional scholars think the individual mandate is constitutional. It is the same reason their is not a good constitutional argument against it.
The constitution and precedent support the individual mandate.
And two sitting conservative justices would essentially have to contridict two of their previous (and fairly recent) decisions to overturn the mandate.
Cable news......has led you astray....again.
@ Anna Molly
Why reject the other portions aside from single payor?
What is wrong with being able to keep the negotiated rate that one can get through one's employer when you change jobs? You're still the same person, and it's still the same service, the only thing that's different is that you've changed jobs.
Next, what is wrong with an exchange for health insurance coverage. The reason why there's a standard price for stocks/bonds/commodities is because of a global market. Why shouldn't health insurance be treated like a fungible good that is subject to direct, nation-wide competition?
Lastly, what's wrong with health insurance competing across state lines? I can buy home and car insurance from anywhere in the US...so what's wrong with being able to buy health insurance the same way? Why should health insurers have a special legal carve-out that saves them from having to price more competitively...this is especially fascinating that you would be against this, yet be for single-payor, considering that interstate competition would drive prices down, not up for consumers.
Finally, I'm not sure if you were against the personal buy-in to Medicare as if it were a private insurer as well considering your flat-rejection of all but my first suggestion. But having this ability could create a position where the private insurers must directly compete with a government body. I would suggest that the personal buy-in to Medicare must be self-funded...meaning that Medicare would not be able to unfairly compete against the private insurers. This market would be similar to how companies like DHL, UPS and FedEx compete with and partly service the USPS.
@ imwhitewolf
The reason why I'm against Congress having the authority to require that ALL citizens "buy" something is because of the ability for it to be abused. Congress as a collective has an extremely low approval rating, but you and I can only effect the candidacy of only one congressman in our respective districts. It is because of that factor that Congress is able to operate at such an abysmally low approval rating yet still stay in power.
I'm fine if states want to have their own mandate, that's within their authority. But I don't think that such authority should also be vested at the Federal level because of how easily it could be abused.
@Seriously, no really.
What is the difference between a state abusing such authority and the federal government abusing said authority? Why are you ok with the states abusing?
Congress could abuse it, but only to an extent.
This is the reason the whole 'brocolli' argument is absurd. Congress cannot simply mandate someone buy something. That mandate has to be directly and rationally related to an issue congress is constitutionally allowed to regulate....as the mandate is with health care.
Obamacare stick a fork in it, it's done. Obama stick a fork in him, he's done. Anymore questions?
JD in SD.
You are wrong.
There is plenty of precedent for the individual mandate. You simply do not understand the constitution, which is usually the case with those who carry it around. LOL!!!
--------------------------------
The commerce clause gives congress the right to regulate the insurance and the health care industry.
Yes or no? (If you say no, please inform the insurance and health care industry. I am sure they would love to hear your argument as to why so they could avoid all of the current regulations in the future.)
And since we have established (hopefully) that the commerce clause gives congress the right to regulate the health care industry let's move on to the necessary and proper clause.
The courts have found that they necessary and proper clause gives congress the power to enforce a statute, "we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power." --John Roberts (see below).
So let's go slowly . . . . .
Does the necessary an proper clause give congress the power to enforce this statue (the individual mandate)?
Let's see.
Is the individual mandate a means that is rationally related to a constitutionally enumerated power? Let's examine...
What is the constitutionally enumerated power? The Commerce Clause.
What does this clause give congress the power to do in this situation? Regulate the insurance and health care industry.
What is one of the purposes of the individual mandate? (i.e. Why would congress want to regulate the insurance and health care industry?) To provide access to health care for nearly all Americans, etc.
Filling in the blanks.........
Is the individual mandate a means that is rationally related to regulating the insurance and health care industry in order to provide access to health care to nearly all Americans?
YES or NO?
I think the answer is clearly yes. (If you disagree, please explain.)
===============================================
Or.....we could look at the opinion by Scalia in Gonzales v. Reich:
'The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.'
Is the individual mandate a means that is "reasonably adapted" to regulating the insurance and health care industry (under the commerce power) in order to provide access to health care to nearly all Americans (the legitimate end)?
YES or NO?
I think the answer is clearly yes. (If you disagree, please explain.)
===============================================
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/comstock2010.html
Bob-Jones.
LOL!!! You obvioulsy cannot defend your spoon fed position on health care....so you react with an emotional projection.
You hope the mandate gets struck down. However, the precedent, and the fact two sitting conservative justices would have to contridict thier own fairly recent decisions, suggest it may not be so likely.
Man will you be an angry mess if that happns, huh? And if Obama does win in 2012? LOL!!! Stay away from tall buildings....
At the state level, it is under the control of the governor (popular vote) and legislators (district popular vote). At the state level, there is more accountability directly to the voters.
At the federal level, Congressmen from other states could effectively supercede the rates to charge for a healthcare mandate against other states. It is far too expansive and will be used as a tool by both sides to enact other social agendas aside from just the healthcare mandate...you and I both know that...they already do that with income taxes and payroll taxes...imagine what giving them the ability to mandate would allow?
I'm not about to support an act that allows a government body with less than an 18% approval rating to have that much power.
Next, regarding the "mandate" itself.
You still haven't supported whether Congress has the ability to mandate health insurance the way states can mandate auto insurance. But this is why it's headed to the SCOTUS. Sadly, I think that Thomas is not going to recuse himself from the procedings, which is a clear conflict of interest given his wife's associations, but I feel that he's a hypocrite and outright criminal given his other conflicts of interest that he's acted on in the past (particularly related to the FDA and the "organic certification" that can be placed on GMO food).
I think that we need HCR. but I think that the mandate was put in there by lobbyists as a potential kill-switch that would require the whole bill to be thrown out. The health insurance lobby is HUGE and they worked tirelessly behind the scences to keep any majorly strict rules from cutting into their profit margins.
Republicant - You are so off base with your legal analysis that I hardly know where to start. Although it is being attempted, there is no way that the commerce clause can be used to justify the individual mandate in the health care law. Insurance contracts have never been seen as commerce, which is traditionally defined as relating to the trade and carriage of good/merchandise. The precedent cases you cite deal with actual goods and therefor are not relevant to the question of insurance which is not a tangible thing. Also, the commerce clause allows the government to regulate economic activity, but does not say a word about regulating inactivity. In addition, the precedent is there that the insurance industry is regulated at the state level under the authority of the tenth amendment. Insurance companies are licensed to do business on a state by state basis, therefor there would be no interstate commerce involved in an insurance contract.
In addition, whether or not any individual has health insurance has no impact on the access to health care on the part of any other individual or society as a whole. As such, there is no compelling state interest in whether or not a person has health insurance. There is a huge difference between the compelling state interest in assuring that everyone have access to health care and the forcing of individuals to carry health insurance. There is also absolutely no precedent for the government being able to force and individual into entering into a contract with a private party.
You sound like a lawyer wannabe who read some talking points on a web site and regurgitated them here. Do some more research and you will find that you are way off and that the cases you cite have no bearing on this argument because health insurance is not considered goods/merchandise.
@Seriously..
While I agree that at the state level, people in that state would have more control, I think this is a national problem that cannot be solved by individual states. (It has not as of yet.)
I honsestly do think there are better ways then the mandate. Ways that would have done the same thing, but averted a challenge. For example, instead of a mandate, it could have been a tax, and at the end of the year, if you have insurance, you don't pay the tax. (Essentially the same thing.)
As for the mandate.....
I did, actually, support why congress has the ability to mandate health insurance. It has nothing to do with why states can mandate auto insurance. It has to do with two constitutional clauses, the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause. I explained above how they are relevant, and how they show, through precedent, that the mandate is constitutional.
Here is Scalia and Roberts in two past decisions using the necessary and proper clause in conjunction with the commerce clause:
Scalia in Gonzalas v. Raich (2005):
As we implicitly acknowledged in Lopez, however, Congress’s authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws directed against economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Though the conduct in Lopez was not economic, the Court nevertheless recognized that it could be regulated as “an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.” 514 U.S., at 561. This statement referred to those cases permitting the regulation of intrastate activities “which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.” Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S., at 119; see also United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 118—119 (1941); Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S., at 353. As the Court put it in Wrightwood Dairy, where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, “it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.” 315 U.S., at 118—119.
Although this power “to make … regulation effective” commonly overlaps with the authority to regulate economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,2 and may in some cases have been confused with that authority, the two are distinct. The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power. See Darby, supra, at 121.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html
Cheif Justice Roberts in U.S. vs Comstock (2010):
We have since made clear that, in determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact a particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/comstock2010.html
JS.
What?
LOL!!! Insurance contracts are not commerce?
So, you are saying congress doesn't have the right to regulate them? Well, you had better inform the insurance industry.......LOL!!! (Wow, just Wow!!)
---------
Your "tangible" argument is nothing more then an example of someone trying to rationalize a postion he already holds.....on an issue he knows very little about.
Insurance is commerce, and it is regulated by congress. Study up, kid.
------------------------
As we implicitly acknowledged in Lopez, however, Congress’s authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws directed against economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Though the conduct in Lopez was not economic, the Court nevertheless recognized that it could be regulated as “an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.” 514 U.S., at 561 ---Scalia
---------------------
You do not understand precedent. Precedent does not have to mean the exact thing has happened.
'As the Court put it in Wrightwood Dairy, where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, “it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.” . . . The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power' --Scalia
Cheif Justice Roberts in U.S. vs Comstock (2010):
We have since made clear that, in determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact a particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.
--Roberts
----------------
No Jr. I simply take the time to study and understand the issues before spouting off.
You should seriously try it sometime.......
So please explain to me how the "mandate" portion of the HCR bill is the way to solve this dilemma and not ANY of the alternatives that I suggested? You're automatically assuming that the mandate is the penultimate solution...I contend that it is not.
I think the mandate has the least value out of this whole thing. It's going to be prone to abuse, just like SSI and Medicare payments are. What is going to stop Congress from borrowing from this as well? Absolutely nothing!
I don't want to give Congress any more power than they already have to enact more crony-capitalist nonsense and screw the middle class.
Giving Congress the power to mandate greatly expands their avenues to generate income...they WILL eventually vote to allow themselves access to this income...they've done so with EVERY OTHER SOURCE THUS FAR!
How about instead of giving more money to Congress, we make the market more competitive for health insurers, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies.
You need to justify how the mandate fixes what my suggestions cannot.
I can justify my standpoint...I'm eagerly awaiting yours.
Seriously.
I did not say, or assume, that the mandate is the "penultimate soluion".
I only said their was a better way to go about the mandate that would have avoided the constitutional questioning. However, although it may not be the penultimate solution, the mandate is a way to get everyone to pay for the healthcare they will eventually use.
Everything is prone to abuse. That does not mean congress should do nothing.
Congress already has the power, as I showed.
And it does not greatly expand the power of congress. As I also explained, the mandate does not give congress blanket authority to mandate purchases. As with all authority that is granted using the precedent, there has to be a reasonable and rational relation between what congress did and what they are trying to accomplish using said constitutionally enumerated power. This is why they cannot mandate everyone eat brocolli.
I think we should make the market more competitive for health insurers, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. However, that does not solve the problem of people using the hospitals as care for free, nor does it necessarily solve the access problem.
The mandate fixes the problem of people not paying for health care accross the country. None of your suggestions do this.
I have justified my standpoint, which was that the mandate is within congress' constitutional powers. I provided precedent and reasoning to support my position.
I have not seen anything close to a constitutional argument from those against it. Mosly political ones arguing there are better ways, or simply I don't like the mandate, etc.
Seriously.
P.S.
Congress does not borrow from Medicare.
Congress does borrow from the SS fund. They pay interest.
The reason congress borrows from the SS fund is mostly because they would be borrowing money anyway, so why not borrow it from ourselves. In short, the U.S. Treasury is the safest place to put our money.
In addition, with the cost of health care, it is doubtful the fines from the mandate would ever come close to equaling anything resembling a surplus.....
First, you are mistaken, Congress borrows from the unobligated gains in both the Medicare and SSI trusts.
http://www.actuary.org/pdf/health/Medicare%20Financial%20IB%20Final%20052511.pdf
Also, don't give too much credence to the interest bearing aspect of these notes that Congress leaves. The Fed Rate dictates the yield of those notes, and that rate has been near-zero for quite a long time now...so the yield is abysmal. When the Fed raises its rate (which it will have to eventually), the value of the notes that these trusts hold will fall drastically.
Next, like SSA, the Medicare Trust cannot call in the debt owed on these notes until they reach critical insolvency, this will not happen because Congress is currently working on adjusting the payouts and eligibility requirements. After all, why would Congress want to cut off one of their easiest money-supplies?
Next, you didn't show legal precedent for a Federal Mandate. There's a reason that it is going to the SCOTUS. This is a serious legal grey-area that is going to take the law-of-the-land to weigh in on the powers of Congress.
Next, regarding your concern about not getting people to pay for their own health insurance. The people who don't pay now won't pay later...many of them are unemployed and a handful simply don't care. They will be on the public dole either way, or their out of pocket will quickly teach them that they shouldn't forgo medical insurance.
Having cheap medical insurance that isn't supported by an employer while also having the option of buying directly from Medicare like any other insurance is more than enough to bring the service to the majority of Americans. People spend more on their cable TV and gasoline than they would if we could open the health insurance market to honest competition.
I understand the value of having a mandate to directly fund a service that everyone is going to eventually consume a part of, but I don't trust Congress to keep their grubby paws off of it...it's too tempting and it already happened with the other two major trusts.
OK...
First off, The SC should have heard this case months ago. This thing needs to be decided. Love it or Hate it, it needs to be decided one way or another now. Everyone needs to be able to move forward.
Second, The auto insurance argument is tired and weak, please just stop. The STATES do that, because The Constitution says they can
Third, on the subject of severability of the individual mandate - The law was specifically written so there is no severability. It was in there originally, but the finished bill was written SPECIFICALLY AND WITH INTENT so that severing it from the rest of the bill is not possible.
Fourth - The following is my educated opinion of the Act itself. A previous poster said that maybe ten people had actually read the damn thing. Well I have. Am I number 11?
Here's the problems with the bill. Everybody is aware of what the main problem is with healthcare. It is RISING COSTS! This Act does NOTHING to adress that issue. If you don't adress that issue, then NOTHING you do has a chance of helping the situation. Now Obama said he would televise the entire process. Then he went behind closed doors with the lobbyists and industry executives. He threw out the cameras and reporters and went Off Grid. What emerged from that was a BAD BILL. It gives insurance companies, and through the insurance companies the Hospital and Pharma industries, A DIRECT PIPELINE INTO OUR TAX DOLLARS!!! For instance, a 40 yr old man making 20k per year will pay 4,500 for single coverage. Because it is based on a percentage of income, that mans insurance would cost $4500.00, he would pay $1019.00 of that. The other $3,481.00 would be payed directly from the Govt to the insurance company. Thats OUR MONEY!!!!
http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx
There is nothing in the bill that limits what the insurance companies can charge. There is no limit to yearly increases. There is a stipulation that says they must devote 85% to patient care. BUT! Can there be patient care without clerks to pay the hospitals? And there has to be managers to oversee them right? And there's no patient care unless there is a treasurer to cut the checks...And a CFO to oversee the finances...etc, etc... You see where this is going. Patient care is not so clearly defined in this monstrosity of a bill. And 15% profit? Bernie Madoff was promising 13% and everyone said they should have known it was too good to be true. What is 15% in profits on the entire insurance industry? Quite a bit. They WILL game this system, and there are many holes to game through.
SO! The insurance agencies will now have all those healthy uninsured people paying into the system. Thier costs will be lower. Do you think they will lower their rates? HA! Thay won't!
The Hospitals now will no longer have to absorb all those costs from the uninsured. Do you think they will lower their prices? HA HA! They won't!
The Pharma companies will now have a huge market of newly insured. Their sales will skyrocket. Do you think they will lower prices? HA HA HA! They won't!
This is a BAD BILL! It is a WINDFALL for the Hospital, Pharma and Insurance industries. A taxpayer funded BONANZA of profits! It does nothing to adress rising costs. Now, if Obama did nothing, rates would have continued to increase. Now, because he did pass this bill, he will get the blame. Simple really. And because this so called "constitutional scholar" hung his hat on The Commerce Clause, rather than making it a Tax, and because he decided to write it in a way that made severability impossible, we are screwed. The Federal Government can do taxes, no question. Can they force people to engage in commerce? Force people to contract with a private for profit company? Most people think not, but we shall see.
Conclusion? Obama Blew it. And now we are in danger of losing the GOOD parts of the bill, like the pre-existing conditions part, and the part allowing young adults to remain on their parents insurance for longer. No single payer option (which the poor broke insurance companies are strangely terrified of), no interstate competition, no tort reform, no allowances made to purchase cheaper drugs elsewhere, no bringing prices down whatsoever! And the insurance companies are raising rates like crazy before somebody on The Hill figures it out and caps them. Terrible.
I'd also like to mention the 40% tax on so called "cadillac" plans. The Act defines almost any decent health plan as a "cadillac" plan. I'm not sure why my plan is a "cadillac" plan... a 19 year old clerk in Omaha routinely tells my Doctor what he can and cannot perscribe to me. Even though my Doctor has known me 20 years, and has a Medical Degree. The clerk simply looks at what the insurance company prefers, and that is what goes. Deviating from that without going through a month long waiver process results in them refusing to pay for the perscription. Anyways, back to the 40% Tax... Who does The President think will eat this? Employers? HA! It's Employees, dummy. And thet means a pay cut. And that means a lowering in the average workers quality of life. And that means less consumer spending. You know, 70% of the economy? Duh!
If Obama hadn't made all The Democrats fall on their swords to pass this crap, WE WOULD STILL HAVE THE HOUSE!!!!!!! Seriously, here in Mass we even replaced our dead Hero Terrible Teddy K with a Republican. First time in like a hundred years we sent a Republican Senator, and we did it SPECIFICALLY TO DEFEAT THE HRCA!!! What did Obama do? "reconciliation".... Seriously, WTF? Didn't you HEAR us? The Damn thing was "Deemed". Makes me wanna holler.
Another well meaning but poorly thought out and horribly executed Obama Failure.
Please run Hilary, PLEASE!!!!!!!!
Save us Hilary!!!!!!
Excellent post, Alil common sense, particularly where you highlight the true deficiency of the bill, that it does nothing to arrest the ever rising costs of medical care, which is what 90% of Americans are worried about.
The American public no doubt feels like a homeowner who brought in a contractor to fix the foundation, and instead, he knocked out a wall and started building an addition to the house. The health care reform bill is the chief reason the Democrats lost control of the House, and is why Obama doesn't have the political capital to order a large cheese pizza.
As to whether the law violates the constitution or not, I honestly do not know. I've heard both interpretations, and the SC will have to make their "expert" determination. But legislation itself is bad, of that I have no doubt.
BTW: I too am from Massachusetts and the last Republican Senator from this state was Ed Brooks, who left office after 1978. That's not quite 100 years ago. It feels like it sometimes, but it is not.
Also, regarding Hillary Clinton, bright woman that she is, I cannot forget (or forgive) that she voted for the invasion of Iraq, way back in 2002. I know, Bush lied (or was it Cheney), but anybody with two grey cells still firing upstairs knew a) it would not be an easy war, b) Saddam was not involved, and c) weapons inspectors were not finding a damn thing.
If Hillary did not know these things, then she did not wish to. If she did know, then she lacks the moral courage to stand against the prevailing wisdom of the moment. Either way, she falls short of what I would expect or want in a leader.
@ Alil Common Sense
Fantastic post. I would +1 you again but I've run out of +1's!
The rising cost of care is the most pivotal aspect, and like Medicare Part D, it does nothing to bring down prices.
It's amazing how there's a shortage of doctors and medical facilities in the US, particularly considering the earning potential of the industry. That type of imbalance is indicative of manipulation. Why on earth are we importing doctors from India/Pakistan and not stepping up the turnout here in the US.
If we want to bring prices down, we need to increase supply
Lets identify the bottlenecks
Any other major items?
Seriously.
What I meant was that we no longer really borrow from the Medicare fund, for it pays out more then it takes in.
On borrowing from SS......
Where do you suggest we put the money from SS? Is there a safer place to invest it the U.S Treasury's? I don't think so.
Yes I did. You obviously did not understand it, nor do you understand precedent.
The precedent comes from the commerce clause and the necissary and proper clause.
I will repost. Please specifically address where my reasoning is wrong rather then claim I did not show the precedent. Thanks.
The commerce clause gives congress the right to regulate the insurance and the health care industry.
Yes or no? (If you say no, please inform the insurance and health care industry. I am sure they would love to hear your argument as to why so they could avoid all of the current regulations in the future.)
And since we have established (hopefully) that the commerce clause gives congress the right to regulate the health care industry let's move on to the necessary and proper clause.
The courts have found that they necessary and proper clause gives congress the power to enforce a statute, "we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power." --John Roberts (see below).
So let's go slowly . . . . .
Does the necessary an proper clause give congress the power to enforce this statue (the individual mandate)?
Let's see.
Is the individual mandate a means that is rationally related to a constitutionally enumerated power? Let's examine...
What is the constitutionally enumerated power? The Commerce Clause.
What does this clause give congress the power to do in this situation? Regulate the insurance and health care industry.
What is one of the purposes of the individual mandate? (i.e. Why would congress want to regulate the insurance and health care industry?) To provide access to health care for nearly all Americans, etc.
Filling in the blanks.........
Is the individual mandate a means that is rationally related to regulating the insurance and health care industry in order to provide access to health care to nearly all Americans?
YES or NO?
I think the answer is clearly yes. (If you disagree, please explain.)
===============================================
Or.....we could look at the opinion by Scalia in Gonzales v. Reich:
'The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are "reasonably adapted" to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.'
Is the individual mandate a means that is "reasonably adapted" to regulating the insurance and health care industry (under the commerce power) in order to provide access to health care to nearly all Americans (the legitimate end)?
YES or NO?
I think the answer is clearly yes. (If you disagree, please explain.)
===============================================
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/comstock2010.html
Repulicants
If you think that the 'individual mandate' is constitutional, then where does it end? If the Federal Government can force us to buy something from a private (for profit) company as a condition of living, then where do we draw the line?
Buying Life Insurance?
Buying Disability Insurance?
Buying Earthquake/Tornado Insurance?
Buying a car?
Buying vegetables because they're healthier?
And the list could be endless because the government gets to dictate what's 'good for us'.
And what happens to 'State's Rights' - They would become meaningless because the Federal Government would get to decide everything that we must do.
This case would not be the first case where the Supreme Court ruled that a law passed by Congress under the 'Commerce Clause' was overly broad and unconstitutional.
In any event, nothing that you or I think matters, because ultimately it will be decided by the Supreme Court. Appeals courts (better versed than you or I) on both sides have come to opposite conclusions, so it will be in the hands of the highest court soon, and we will be stuck with their decision, whether we like it or not.
PS - Precedent is only valid until changed or clarified.
Repulicant - I haven't time to go point by point through your constitutional defense of the individual mandate; not being a judicial scholar, I have no settled opinion on the subject. On a gut level, the individual mandate feels like it should be unconstitutional; nobody should be involunarily forced "buy" something which they feel is unnecessary. But gut feelings have little standing in the courts. Since trained legal minds are currently preparing to argue this case, I would suggest that, at the very least, your interpretation is not universally accepted.
But really, this question of whether this law is or is not constitutionally valid is a side issue. The real issue is the law itself. Simply put, and as several people on this thread have already remarked, this Health Care Reform does little or nothing to hold down the rapid rise of medical costs, and until that is accomplished, achieving universal coverage is nothing but a pipe dream.
Somebody needs to send Obama an letter, email or tweet saying"It's the cost of medical care, stupid!"
It was a dumb law, and both its substance and the manner in which it was enacted is the chief reason that today there are more Republicans in the House of Representatives than there are Democrats, which in turn is why the Tea Party Republicans were able to turn the debt-ceiling debate into such a gut-wrenching experience.
Stupid, d*mn law.
I have no idea of whether it is or is not Constitutional. My hope is that it is declared unconstitutional.
Roy Wilson.
You could ask the question, "Where does it end?", when talking about many powers granted to congress by the commerce clause.
The answer is that it ends when there is no rational relation between what is being done and what is being attempted.
Take the brocolli example that Judge Vinson embarrassed himself by using.
Congress could not regulate that everyone eat or buy brocolli, for one would have to stack inference on top of inference to reach the conclusion eating brocolli would help solve the problems with health care.
-----------
But I do agree with you last statement. In the end, only nine opinions matter.
dman.
You are right. The interpretation is not universally accepted. However, a majority of constitutional scholars do think the mandate is constitutional, many for the reasons I posted.
I am not sure if you are correct about the other part, however.
Just as the interpretation surrounded the constitutionality of the mandate is not universally accepted, neither is the projections about what the law will or will not do.
The truth is, despite the right screaming dooms day and the left being over optimistic, no one knows whether the law will:
Bring down the cost of health care, do nothing, or cause it to cost more.
Add to the debt or reduce it.
Make the system better, do little, or make it worse.
EVERYONE is merely speculating. Most based on what they want to believe, or were fed on cable news.
P.S. You are also likely right about the politics from the law that led to the Tea Nuts disasterous romp through congress.
Repulicants "EVERYONE is merely speculating. Most based on what they want to believe, or were fed on cable news."
True. This could go either way. Personally, I thought the Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) decision was wrong, but it was wartime, and a lot of constitutional protections went by the wayside during that time.
Since Justice Kagan will likely have to recuse herself because she defended the law in the lower courts, it might be difficult for Obama to win, but anything could happen. Justice Kennedy could go either way - based on other decisions, he might vote to uphold the law. I wonder what happens if it's tied 4 - 4, with differing Appeals Court verdicts in effect?
In case it is ruled constitutional, the middle class will 'take it in the shorts', because the 'rich' will be able to afford the insurance, the 'poor' will get it for free (courtesy of the taxpayers), illegal immigrants will also get free coverage by going to hospital emergency rooms and ignoring the bills, and that leaves the burden of the expense on the middle class, who will be FORCED to pay, whether they can afford it or not. I wonder how many of the young people that voted for Obama will feel when they get stuck with the bill for subsidizing older people with health problems?
PS - Insurance companies will love it, because they will get millions of new, largely healthy, people to charge premiums on.
Repulicants - I strongly disagree with the above statement. I live in Massachusetts, where under the governorship of that human chameleon, Mitt Romney, a very similar health insurance package was enacted in 2006. It too includes an individual mandate, which o'l Mitt somehow feels was a great idea for our state, but not for the other 49 states.
In the years since the escalation of medical and health insurance costs have continued to escalate at very much the same rate as in the nation as a hole.
So... what was accomplished?
A new bureaucracy was created, along with a nascent entitlement program for subsidizing those who cannot afford their mandated coverage.
So, I'll turn it around on you and ask, what specific provisions in the national law will work to hold down upward spiraling medical care costs?
I'll give you hint, our own (Massachusetts) liberal governor, Deval Patrick, said in a recent interview that the dirty little secret about the national bill is that it does not address the problem of ever escalating costs.
So no, it is not just conservatives who decry this execrable legislation. It it were, liberal Martha Coakley, not conservative Scott Brown, would be the junior U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, which is a very liberal state.
...and I'll repeat my question: how does this national program hold down health care costs?
The ball is in your court, rolling slowly beyond the baseline.
@ Repulicants
I acknowledge that you gave a good argument. But as others have pointed out, the appelate courts have found on both sides of this issue.
Also, the Commerce Clause is designed to prevent one state from enacting laws that unduly hinders the flow of commerce between states.
You posit that the commerce clause allows Congress to regulate insurance companies...Interestingly enough, the health insurers have a carve-out that prevents them from being subject to the Commerce Clause. It's why health insurers are not allowed to compete with each other across state-lines! Which I think is a ridiculous, crony-capitalist policy the way Medicare Part D was designed primarily to line the pockets of big pharmaceutical companies.
It took an act of Congress for Congress to regulate the health insurance companies...that's why only until recently, insurers can no longer do a number of shifty moves like deny based on pre-existing conditions or be able to drop a person's coverage because they are dying of a terminal illness and are now starting to dip in too deeply to the insurer's coffers.
Next, while you and I would like to be idealistic about how the ability to mandate a purchase could be isolated to something important like health care...I think you grossly under-estimate just how easily that can be expanded in the coming years to encompass any number of other things.
It's like Line-Item Veto. Sure, some presidents would be able to handle this ability very carefully and fairly, but just like the ability to fillibuster, it can and would eventually be abused. Take a look at how Congress allowed themselves to borrow from the SSI and Medicare Trusts in the first place! The money was coming in first, then they gave themselves the ability to tap into it. I see no such change in discipline from that peanut gallery.
Lastly, per your point regarding where the SSA and Medicare should put their cash. First, I'm not against it being in T-bills. But I am against the fact that these trusts are the victims of their relationship with Congress and the severe lack of checks and balances with regard to the public interest.
For example:
Rule: Congress may borrow against all "unobligated gains" of these trusts
Rule: The SSA and Medicare Trusts may only call in Congress's notes when they are approaching critical insolvency
Rule: The SSA and Medicare Trusts may only acquire T-bills and may only buy at the going market rate
So. Get rid of these conflicts of interest, and I'm fine with Congress borrowing from these Trusts.
How about you try and run the equivalent of a pension fund where all of your gains that are in excess of the current fund-obligations aren't reinvested, but instead replaced with a low-yield interest bearing note that you cannot ever cash in. Compound that "feauture" with the fact that that interest-bearing note will eventually be replaced by another one that offers a lower rate than the previous.
Explain to me how you think that fund continues to operate
Wow, I really mixed up "its" and "it's" in that last post...my apologies for the bad grammar
The sooner we settle the whether HCR is constitutional the better. Business and individuals need to know what adjustments they need to make. Uncertainty makes citizens and business unsure of how to proceed. As a citizen I need to know what I will do if my husbands company decides it's most cost effective to opt out of Health care benefits and pay the gov't fine instead. I need to plan for the future.
Business uncertainty is a lot of chatter that sounds good but is just political chatter whether it is about regulation or health care. Businesses do not make their decisions while waiting for Congress or the Supreme Court to do something, they make decisions based on demand, based on need. It isn't the Affordable Health Care Act that is the driving factor in business decisions regarding health insurance for employees, it is the high cost of that health insurance which has nothing to do with HCR. Any business can opt out of offering health care at any time they choose, read the fine print where it says "subject to change at our discretion". They are not waiting for a ruling on this to make their decisions.
Jody, I am sorry that you consider my concerns political chatter. I am trying to be a responsible citizen by planning for family.
So Jody - what percentage of your business's overhead is devoted to health care costs?
By what percentage has your business seen that cost increase in the last 10 years? WHat considerations have you give to dropping coverage altogether is the bill goes through? WHat have your companies insurance carriers been advising you about coverage availability, changes, increased costs, additional regulations, and the like?
Jody, what in the heck do you know about what businesses are or are not doing? Shoot Jody - what do you knnow about running a business at all?
See you talk like you actually know about this, or even run a business and have to provide coverage to employees. But that's just not the case, now is it Jody?
Good luck to you, lisa.
Such a wonderful stage to be at!
We and us decided to have one.
And he is a gem!
Jody,
I agree that business are not waiting to hear about the ruling, but we all know that the HCR bill will do nothing to contain costs in fact it will increase costs. Repeal the bill and pass smaller bills on the good parts...pre-existing conditions, dependant covered to age 26. I truly believe that what the democrats thought would be their "historic" bill will really be their downfall.
Cain/Rubio 2012
Spanky, could you perhaps discuss the topic without ad hominem attacks? They may make you feel better about dismissing viewpoints different from your own, but they don't actually contribute to civil discourse.
Richard, I don't understand your response. I would truly like to have a conversation.
Jody - you obviously have never ran a business before. Companies spend a great deal of time planning future cost constraints, liabilities and changes in tax law and regulations. Especially in a recession when their operating capital is lower and especially when they are considering hiring more workers.
Why do you think they spend so much money supporting business-friendly policies? Its definitely not because they don't think about those issues or think they don't matter to their company. Quite the contrary, Jody.
O.K., lisa.
I'll start by saying that it was fortunate for us to have coverage through my wife's hospital employer.
Richard, I am glad you had coverage. The are parts of HCR that I agree with. I have a grandson with Diabetes. I am only saying that we need to know what to plan for one way or another.
Not sure what you need to know, lisa.
I thought you were starting a family.
As far as your grandson, diabetes can be out grown.
And, through measures, overcome.
Gee spanky, perhaps you could provide us with some of your experience. Maybe explain the difference between two companies in the same business. One that provides health care for their employees and the other that does not. Which one has the advantage? Should one have an advantage? Is one taking advantage of their employees or not. Gee, spanky you seem soooooooo intelligent, please let us know the way. Here is your chance to impress us. By the way, I will ask you again. Who pays for your health care?
ir12 - Who pays for my health care?
I do. Part of the joy of being a small business owner. Do you have any idea how much providing health care costs?
So how about it ir12, how intelligent are you? Employ many people? Do you find the cost of health care ridiculous? Do you find the rules and regulations attendant with providing that benefit to your employees to be onerous and abusive?
How about the fact that many health care companies are advising that a large part of the coverage that is available today will be gone if this bill is implemented? You having those conversations ir12?
Is it scarring the crap out of your too?
Yeah, that's what I though ir12. You do not own a business, employ others orr have to provide coverage to anyone. In fact I bet you get the luxury of sitting back and taking what your employer provides.
You are lucky ir12.
So spanky, if you do own a business, and this is something you should not forget, your customers pay for your health care, not you. When ever you use an establishment whose workers use your services that does not provide health care for their workers, you confirm yourself as a hypocrite. I could be wrong, you may only buy from and use the products of companies that provide health care for their employees. But I doubt it.
It does not scare me, because as Americans, we can overcome all obstacles. We do not need to scare people with lies. And they are lies because they have not come to past. Imagine there are people that believe mankind has nothing to do with global warming.
Your problem is you do not believe the bill will provide (as it is intended to do) health care for all. That would kind of negate your (or others as you say) belief that benefits will be diminished. No spanky, it only confirms my suspicion that you are afraid you may not be able to be better than others because you have health care and they do not. In essence they pay for your health care and you do not have to help pay for theirs.
Someone smart enough to run a business should be able to understand the benefit of shared coats. If everyone has health care, it will reduce the cost of those now paying for those who do not in their premiums.
Sorry spank, but nothing you say makes any sense. It is only designed to belittle others by making yourself sound important. If you really are having conversations with companies telling you health care will be destroyed, well guess what, their are people that will come in and provide excellent health care to the American public once these idiots are out of the way.
You have no reason to be scared.
The government has no right to take other peoples money to provide healthcare for anybody. Medicare is a program that takes a special tax and the government provides a service. Medicaid and other welfare is unconstitutional as is obamacare. Spanky's customers choose to buy from him. He takes the risk with his money to run his business. He has no responsibility to anyone where he buys his products. The worlds not fair. Get over it. No one will provide healthcare for nothing. If you cannot pay, you take the risk of dying. Not my problem. Because of progressives like you, remember, we are not all in this together any more.
Jesus Christ , SPANKY! You just got owned by ir12
Sadly ir12 you do not seem to have a good grasp of basic economics, and certainly have no concept of the costs of goods sold. Not all costs are passed through, nor can I, or any other business simply choose the price of the good or unit sold. Rather the market and demand does.
It great that you are not scared ir12, ignorance is bliss after all.
But keep up with the whole "benefit of shared costs" thing. A winning slogan you got their. Well, with maybe you and Bernie Sanders maybe.
ir 12 -
Not true. Spanky right now CHOSES to pay for his/her own healthcare and his/her employee's healthcare. Spanky could just as easily not pay for it and pocket that money for the company. Customers wouldn't know the difference.
What massive government program is run effectively? Wasn't Medicaid/Medicare supposed to cost about 1/10th its current cost? Forgive me for relying on history to determine that this massive program will inevitably become a bureaucratic nightmare that ends up costing 10 times as much because of fraud and waste. I have just never seen a program the government hasn't screwed up yet.
If you think that people who oppose Obamacare only do so because they "are afraid (they) may not be able to be better than others because (they) have healthcare and (others) do not", you are sadly mistaken. Some of us just work hard for our money and want it spent effectively and nothing in the Obamacare legislation has convinced us that this program will be effective or the best solution for our country. Even Obama has said this program is flawed.
Now if we actually spent money on specific programs like helping those who are ineligible with pre-existing conditions get coverage with Medicaid/Medicare, that would be something the majority of Americans would support. Right now, the majority do not support Obamacare.
Tripdog, spank said he paid for his health care, my contention is his customers pay for his health care, please learn to read. Your argument only becomes valid if I have the right to refuse spanky health care when he shows up at the emergency room door. Believe me, I would let him die if he did not have insurance and have no remorse. We all are capable of making choices that affect us. Unfortunately, people like you and spanky say we would have to provide medical service for him. If you can force me to give medical care, I should be able to force you to pay for it.
If you want to use this as a starting point, I say embrace it and let's make it perfect. If all you want to do is complain, then get out of our way, we have work to do.
spank, any product that does not provide the basic necessities for the people that produce it, may not be necessary and that business should die so one that would provide could be found. I understand you may not be bright enough to realize I am saying you are exploiting people if you are not willing to provide them what they provide you. It is obvious you feel you are better than others and expect them to provide for your needs and care nothing about theirs.
Game, set and match, ir12. Well played, and I enjoyed it. Hope you come back!
Spanky, I was a business owner too -until recently- and I could not even get coverage for my wife due to a bout of depression years earlier. I was BEGGING them to take my money but the insurance mafia refused. (oh, did I mention they also denied my 5-yearold son with asthma? yeah, they rather see him die than running the risk of paying for a hospital stay). Once one of them denies you, you're done as they share a database (black list) of "risky" individuals.
This denial of coverage is something the new law addresses. How would you fix this problem Spank? Do you think Romney would address this from the goodness of his heart?
This long-overdue health reform fixes so many wrongs, I can't see how any knuckle-dragging republican can oppose it and maintain some form of humanity or decency.
Thanks newday, but really, it is like shooting fish in a barrel. I believe spanky to be one of the individuals on these boards that are paid to promote agendas to obscure the problems like Tiemen above have. Their only purpose is to deflect attention from the real problems. I have to admit their message of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps and taking care of yourself is appealing to the majority of the American public. But the truth is we all need each other and cannot make it alone.
And as Elizabeth Warren reminds us, the rich did not get their money without help either.
ya know newday, that's right, a lot of the money the rich have was mine at one time. I cannot believe that they do not appreciate the fact that I gave it to them. Gee, if I only knew which company was owned by spanky, I could use another company.
He says he is out in San Diego somewhere. An attorney he tells us.
ir12's comments echoed Elizabeth Warren to me, too. Except the "truth" according to ir12 and Ms. Warren is skewed.
Warren: "you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for..." she omits the factory pays property taxes and the business pays taxes on sales, therefore contributing -likely in a greater proportion - to the building and maintenance of those roads.
Warren: "you hire workers the rest of us paid to educate..." Again, she disregards the contribution by the entrepreneurs that took the risk with their own capital, employed the workers that built the factory, paid their taxes to support surrounding infrastructure and trained those workers.
Warren: "you were safe in your factory because of police and fire forces that the rest of us paid for" Again......
Warren: "you didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory"....... True. The out of control regulations and regulators come in, interfere, stall and disrupt instead.
Elizabeth Warren is either totally unaware of the reality of the world, or intentionally oblivious for the sake of a stump speech.....hopefully folks won't fall for the rhetoric.
Man, I just read what ir12 and his cheerleaders had to say about Obamacare, and I had to go vomit. You know what ir12 (and cheerleaders)? There was a point in my life when I could have used some of that socialism bullsh*t you're trying to spread around now (the truth is we all need each other and cannot make it alone). LOL And you know what? I got NONE of it! Not a damn thing! I had to struggle, I had to make hard choices. I had to do it all myself! And you know what those life experiences taught me? They taught me that I could do it on my own. They taught me to be a survivor, not some weak POS' like you all appear to be! They taught me that life is rough, and unfair, but if you use your brain, you can make it without leeching off of others and justifying it with garbage laden nonsense. As far as I'm concerned, you need to make the same choices I had to make, you need to do for yourselves. I don't owe you a godd*mn thing, and neither does anyone else. If you want to reduce healthcare costs, do it the right way. Stop the influx of illegal aliens. Endorse tort reform. Start holding people accountable for their hospital bills: if they don't or won't pay, take everything they own as compensation. Scare the leeches into being accountable for themselves. Put the boot to insurance companies that engage in unfair practices. Stop trying to make everyone share your costs so that YOU don't have to make difficult choices or sacrifices. I swear, you people are just like the people who bought houses based on liar loans they couldn't afford, and are now screaming that it's all the banks or mortgage companies faults! And stop celebrating your disgusting, lecherous socialist view of the world. You people make me sick!
stonegarden, really, you that good, am I paying for your health insurance too? I am concerned because you sound like someone that will have a knife put into them.
Wow. Really?? Do you appreciate that they took their own capital and risked losing it all to start the business? Do you appreciate that they created jobs for your fellow citizens to build their facilities? Do you appreciate the taxes they pay to contribute to the general fund to be squandered by the politicians you help elect? Do you appreciate that they employed a few, or a hundred or a thousand people who then, in turn were able to provide for themselves and their families, as opposed to living on the streets or falling astray? Do you appreciate that while providing benefits like retirements, pensions and insurance, they are more likely to attract higher quality workers, those workers enjoy those benefits? Do you appreciate that through the training and experience they provided their employees, those employees were given the opportunity to grow and develop with higher levels of self esteem and self reliance and contribute to society?
Do you appreciate any of those things?
Really, ir12? Is that supposed to be some sort of threat, you little b*tch? I'd like to see you come try and put a knife in me and get your fool head blown the f*ck off. I come from the streets, b*tch. Loud mouthed little punks like you with your internet sh*t talking don't scare me at all.
Save your punk a$$ threats for someone your own size. LOL
stoney, I can only assume that you were born in a hospital. You may have been hatched, but I doubt it. Had you needed assistance at birth, we had it ready for you. Of course you may not have needed it, but what if you did?
stoney, you just prove my point. I would never threaten you, however, you do not seem stable enough to have a discussion without getting into a confrontation that would put you into a hospital, running up a bill that I would not want to pay for. I do wish you well, but you are out of your league.
Really Candice. Do you not realize that everything they did was predicated on profit and greed. Am I suppose to worship these individuals because they wanted to make as much money as possible (actually I am grateful for their greed). Am I suppose to appreciate the fact that they would have taken as much of the profit as possible without sharing it with me. Without labor, there is no profit. All you need to know is which side of the equation is gaining to know which side is winning.
Wow, that got ugly. So about that COH.....
And you're on the side that says the Republicans are "Me First."
Like you tried to say ....we're all in this together.
Have a good night, ir12.
Candice, I know a couple of good republicans that are concerned about everyone, so I will have to look at this tomorrow. Good night.
LOL ir12, you are funny! First you threaten to stick me with a knife, then say you didn't. Then you try to make excuses for how 'I didn't do it on my own'! Hilarious!
BTW The last guy to try to stick me with a knife got the worst end of things. I took it from him and put him in the hospital.
And as far as my hospital bills, I pay them cash, out of pocket, because I took my sh*tty life circumstances and made something of myself. But leave it to somebody on here to not like what I post, make thinly veiled threats, try to call me unstable, and then try to claim that I don't pay my own bills. What a laugh!
All because I don't want to subsidize your healthcare. LOL
The only one out of their league is YOU.
Stoned out, first I did not say I subsidized your health care. I never said I would stick you with a knife, but I could understand that happening. I do not believe anyone that uses the language you do could afford to pay for their own medical bills. i could be wrong, but I doubt it. If you can pay your own medical bills, I congratulate you. The unfortunate thing is that most people cannot pay their medical bills. Then they are told that somehow they are less than human because they cannot pay their bills. They accept that they are inferior because they cannot pay the bill when no one would be able to pay the bill without insurance.
I simply do not believe anyone can pay for their own medical bills unless it was for a hang-nail.
You really need to join the real world.
Hey, way to show your continued maturity by now trying to make fun of my user name. You trying to get another rise out of me? LOL
I never said you did. I said that forcing people like myself, who work out all the time , who stay fit, who make good lifestyle choices, who barely ever see a doctor, except for check ups (which are cheap), buy insurance spreads the costs of people who can't afford their own insurance to me. Thus I am subsidizing their healthcare.
How is that? Do you think that I hang out with violent people who want to stab me for having my own opinion? You are the one who decided to bring threats of violence into a debate about Obamacare, not me. I just told you what would happen to you if you tried to stab me. You may not like that, but it's no reason to back out on your post. Be a man and stand up for what you said. BTW, I left the hood behind a long time ago, but that doesn't mean that I won't carry it with me for the rest of my life.
What language would that be? Calling you a b*tch? Telling you what will happen to you if you try to assault me? Again, you were the one who brought violence into this debate, not me. I simply responded to your nonsense. If you don't like it don't make threats.
As far as being able to pay my own medical bills, I can and do. Given how much sh*t I catch every time I mention how well off I am now, I wouldn't even bring it up if it wasn't true. Do I sound like a sucker for abuse? I am proud of the success I have managed for myself, especially considering where I came from and how hard it was for me to get here. Just because I don't sound like Bill Gates doesn't mean I'm not wealthy. But as far as that is concerned, I really don't care if you believe me or not. Your disbelief isn't going to effect my bank accont at all.
I know. That is why this is such a hot button issue. But it is not my fault, and if you had read my first post properly, you would have seen that I gave several suggestions for how to reduce healthcare costs without trying to take it out on everybody else. I guess you were to busy getting all angry and offended to read properly, though.
Who is saying that?
Really? No one? Your view of the world sure is small. If it was a bill for something catastrophic like cancer, I might agree with you. But most medical bills could be managed if people would make good lifestyle choices. The problem is that way too many people think that, because this is America, they are entitled to any lifestyle they want, whether it is reasonable or not. That is evident in the fact that our country is in the mess it is in right now. People wanting things that were unrealistic, without regard for the consequences. And now you want people like me, who made lots of sacrifices to put ourselves in a good position, to eat up the slack. That is unfair.
If you think that no one can afford their own medical bills, then you are the one who is out of touch with reality. I can, and I know plenty of other people who can as well. Can everybody? No, but that is not my fault, as I did not cause their sh*tty situation.
The bottom line is that people like you are complaining that people who do not pay their bills are a burden on the rest of us. I agree with that. Your solution, however, is to make yourselves a burden on people like me by enslaving us to insurance companies, which makes you a hypocrite. To top it off, you try to justify it by lying to yourselves and each other by claiming that people like me are a part of the problem, which is both insulting and a flat out lie.
You know what my chief problem with insurance is? I am relinquishing my healthcare decisions to a disinterested third party. If something happens to me, and I want to pursue what might be labelled as 'alternative medicine', the insurance company can choose not to cover it, so I will be forced to pay for insurance I will not use and cover the costs of my 'alternative treatment' out of my own pocket. That drives my healthcare costs up even more, and that is patently unfair. That, and the requirement that people who want coverage for abortions will be required to have an extra policy in addition to the standard policy. That is absolute bullsh*t.
That is also reality. You need to get with it.
@stonegarden
--I never said you did. I said that forcing people like myself, who work out all the time , who stay fit, who make good lifestyle choices, who barely ever see a doctor, except for check ups (which are cheap), buy insurance spreads the costs of people who can't afford their own insurance to me. Thus I am subsidizing their healthcare.--
I commend you on working hard, staying in shape, making good choices. I hope you never become victim to cancer, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, parkinson's disease, etc. It doesn't matter how much you work out, how good of lifestyle choices you make, if you are dealt one of these cards you're screwed. I assure you, there's plenty of health problems out there that the majority of Americans could not even come close to pay for on their own. I assume you have insurance, and thus you figure you made a wise choice and should you receive one of these cards you are covered. I agree. But even in the case where you are insured, all those paying for insurance who are healthy are now subsidizing your care because I assure you that you will being receiving more in care than you are paying in. Should others have to subsidize you? You would be the one who got sick.
All I'm saying is the fact that you take care of yourself can be offset in an instant.
ir12
I read your statement and quoted you. Did you read mine? I said Spanky CHOSES to pay for healthcare insurance to cover his own care and his employees. Spanky is not legally obligated to pay for any healthcare insurance. So, if Spanky choses not to cover insurance, he pockets that money for the company. If Spanky’s business suddenly fell apart and he had no customers for an entire month, his employees would still expect Spanky to pay for their health insurance. Spanky may have to reach into savings or give up capital as collateral on a loan to cover health insurance. In that scenario, Spanky’s personal wealth as owner would be covering the cost of health insurance, not customers.
You do know that if you don’t have health insurance, you can just pay for services out of pocket, right? Or did that option never cross your mind? If Spanky’s a business owner, he probably has capital, investments and savings that would hopefully cover his hospital costs. Its not a risk I’d take, but it’s a risk that Spanky has the option to do.
Just because I recognize Spanky has the option to purchase health insurance doesn’t mean I think he shouldn’t. I would never go without health insurance voluntarily. I do respect people’s right to not buy something though. It may bite them in the rear later but they should have that choice.
Disagreeing with someone isn't complaining, ir12. Geesh…open your mind a little to other points of view. The majority of Americans are against Obamacare in its current form, not just me and Spanky. Shouldn’t their opinion matter since everyone of them will be affected?
Ill conceived and badly written. Can't afford it anyway.
We can afford two unfunded wars but not health care?
Jody: Defense is an actual responsibility of the federal government. Health care or health insurance is not.
Nope Jody - we can't afford any of it.
What part about $4 BILLION a day in new debt are you not grasping?
Broke is broke, and Jody, we is broke.
Oh and Jody - why won't Obama end those wars right now? Let's save some money.
The country is broke now, we can't afford this big mistake. Get rid of it and start over!
JOdy, the two have nothing to do with each other, we shouldn't be in two wars, funded or unfunded and the same goes for health care, if you have a mandate then fund it, not with the smoke and mirrors used on this bill but with reality, then people can choose.
Ahh, here we go; you forget "and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;..." Having a healthy citizenry is one of the best ways of remaining a strong country both economically and militarily. Didn't say the two are related but since you brought it up--what part of "for the common Defence" says pre-emptive invasion of a country that was no threat to us. So UNFUNDED wars, UNFUNDED rebuilding of those countries after we blew them to pieces is fine but how dare the United States consider health care as part of the "general Welfare" of the country.
That 5 trill w wasted on his spurious little self sure would come in handy right about now.
Providing for the general welfare didn't mean that at the writing of the Constitution. If it did, then Congress' powers are not enumerated and the 10th Amendment is null and void. And the wars you oppose were voted by for both parties.
And, anyone who voted for those wars should have resigned in shame.
And how about the guy that keeps them going Richard - what should he do?
Question. How many people out there don't have some type of health care/insurance? I am betting not many, and those who don't, either don't care about their health or can't afford it. So if Obamacare can provide health care to those who can't afford it, WHY not give it to them? And if you have insurance why should you care about others not having it.
Another question about health care/insurance. If I go up for a job and I have health care/insurance, my own policy or government, another individual is also applying for the same job, we both have the same qualities/abilities, but the other guy has no insurance. Who is the employee going be hired?
I believe the largest problem with ObamaCare will be its implementation. Look at the amount of fraud that occurs with Medicaid and Medicare today. My doctor refuses both do to the low rate of payments. When Medicare was conceived, it was projected to be in the $1B range by the late 1970's. It hit $3.5B by 1984. I say no way...kill it now!
"And how about the guy that keeps them going Richard - what should he do?"
Deal with the aftermath.
Spanky, regarding your post #3.3, I'm sure reminding you that these wars are not Obama's wars, he didn't start them, will have no effect on you but what about REPUBLICAN Lindsay Graham calling for armed action against Pakistan??? What is it with the right that they are always for it before they were against it, against it before they were for it? They moan and groan about how Obama has not brought all the troops home and talk about how much would be saved if he did so and they sob and whine about how much we are spending on Libya despite us not having actual boots on the ground over there and now one of their very own wants us to start another war??? What's up with that? So tell me one good reason why I should ever consider giving the Tea Party even one iota of credibility or voting for another Republican to lead this country?
Jody -
You should read the Constitution again. It does NOT state to provide for the common defense and the general welfare, but to provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare.
This means that the Constitution actually says something entirely different from what you wish it to say.
There are methods for amending the Constitution, however - if you wish to try.
Derf -
We already have a system for that. Its called Medicaid/Medicare. It covers people who are poor, disabled, seniors, etc. The federal standard is that households making less than $25,000 qualify for benefits, although most states have laws that increase the income limits upwards of $35,000-40,000. If your household makes less than $50,000 in my state of CA, you and your whole family qualify for benefits. Only about 10% of Americans are uninsured. Less than 1% of Americans are uninsured because of pre-existing conditions, the rest have a choice but chose for whatever reason not to be covered.
Obamacare will only subsidize those already eligible for Medicaid/Medicare so that extra 10% of our population now not covered will be forced to pay for something they don't want. The only exception is the 1% of Americans now ineligible for insurance because of pre-existing conditions. That will become the burden of taxpayers, most of whom are already paying for their own insurance. Less competition will also raise prices, as history has shown. Just look at Canada. Their citizens come here when they want "experimental" surgeries like heart valve replacement, hip flexor surgery, etc.
Whoever interviewed better I guess.
First of all, most companies don't ask you about your health insurance status until you are hired. Secondly, whether you have insurance or not before employment, it doesn't really matter to the company because it doesn't affect them in any way. The vast majority of companies in the U.S. encourage all employees to join their health insurance programs. Whether you have your own policy or no insurance at all, they would encourage you to join their group because its less money for you and their totals will be higher. Companies get price breaks from insurers if they have more of a % of their employees on the health plan.
Allie – you really should read into what the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said about Pakistan and specifically about the ISI and their involvement not only in supporting terrorists against the U.S., but also for their repeated lies to our intelligence and military leaders. Not only can we not trust them as an ally, we have significant information that indicates they are funding anti-American attacks in Afghanistan. Since Pakistan is technically our ally and a nuclear nation, this is startling news. Add to it the obliviouce of Osama Bin Laden taking refuge in their country and their government’s reaction to our raid, Pakistan is definitely a hostile nation to the U.S. and our interests. Certainly more so than Libya or Syria or Iraq, etc.
I’ve been staunchly against the war in Iraq and the Libya mess, as well as against the drawn-out presence in Afghanistan but Pakistan is far different. Please read into it before you completely dismiss what Admiral Mullen has said.
Marcus, you're an ignorant fool. Obviously, you have either never had to face the current system in all its ugliness or you are massively incapable of seeing things from another perspective aside from you're limited self.
Under the current system the US already spends almost double the share of GDP on healthcare when compared to socialized healthcare systems (South Korea: 8%, Germany: 11%, the US: 16%). Ours is a story of operating inefficiencies, greed, and an ignorant public that has NO IDEA of what goes on beyond our borders or they would demand something much better for their money.
The US is not a Utopia and not every measure that helps a neighbor is de-facto socialism.
What most of you are forgetting is that under Emergency Treatment and Active Labor Act if you go to the emergency room and have no insurance, no money and no assets the hospital is required to treat you anyway. The health profession claims up to 50% of emergency room charges are noncollectable. Guess who ends up paying for that. How do we turn our backs on those people who need the care but deal with those who abuse the system by going to the emergency room for the slightest little sniffle? The hospitals are required to at least evaluate them before they are released. Could EMTALA have something to do with the high cost of health care? It would be extremely difficult to prove that it does not and could the same happen with HCR?
Good for the DOJ and President Obama. Mixed decisions in the lower courts would just continue to drag this out. What the right-leaning SCOTUS will decide about the mandate is unclear. Best guess is they would not strike down the entire law but these days, after Citizens United, I wouldn't bet any money on it. It would be the right decision if Thomas recused himself but that's not likely to happen. Alito should, too. Our SCOTUS has been compromised by the same big money influences that plague Congress.
The way the law was written, it would have to be stricken. There is no clause that allows for individual parts to stand if others are found unconstitutional. At any rate, one of the DOJ's arguments has been without the mandate, the law won't work. Gotta love that.
Who says it is unconstitutional? I wrote conjecture not fact. What I find interesting is that republicans have yet to take Massachusetts to court over their mandate. Why is that? Where is the TP crowd on that? We have mandated auto insurance and if you buy a house and have a mortgage you must have home owners insurance--it's mandated. None of those mandates are unconstitutional.
States can do things that the federal government cannot. See the 10th Amendment.
Not all states require auto insurance. If you own your house outright, you are not required to purchase home insurance either. And at any rate, those things you mention are state mandates. States can do things that the federal government cannot. See the 10th Amendment.
Jody, you are not forced to buy a house or buy a car, there are millions of people who use trains, buses, taxis bikes,or walk .and live in apartments !!!
Uh, Jody dear, you do understand that Mass. is a state.
I wonder Jody, have you ever even bothered to read the 10th amendment? I bet you have not. Might get in the way of you pontificating.
Kinda different, no?
And please, just stop with the other insurance is mandated arguments.
Just silly, and so tired.
Because, Jody. You choose to drive a car - therefore you must have at least liability. You choose to take out a mortgage to buy a house - therefore you must have insurance. The car insurance protects the person you plow into. The home insurance protects the interests of the bank. These are "mandates" imposed by the States and not by the Federal Government. That's a big difference, and that's why Massachusetts is not federal issue. If you choose to receive healthcare services, you should choose to have a way to pay for it.
I'm glad the President chose to move forward and not delay.
Justice Kagen should recuse herself as well, don't you think?
Go USA, You have to be kidding? Which states do not require you to have auto insurance?
Really, Candice? And flood insurance....do give us your lecture on that.
Perhaps our experts, Candice or Spanky could explain where else in the Constitution there is a reference to promoting the General Welfare, and explain the difference between the view that Madison held vs the one held by Hamilton on that very issue, and why Alexander Hamilton's interpretation might hold sway. I do so like to be educated by those in the know.
New Hampshire and Wisconsin. Also, the states that do mandate auto insurance only require it if you drive on public roads and it is not insurance for yourself but for the other drivers you may harm.
Full coverage is typically only required by banks if you have the vehicle financed.
Mandating purchasing of health care or else by the federal government is a huge difference and sets a precedent I'm not comfortable with.
I do hope we get meaningful healthcare reform that will allow everyone to enjoy good health but I think forcing people to buy insurance is the wrong way to go about it.
Hello, NewDay. Glad to see you Returned.
Flood insurance? I think if you choose to live in a house on the bank of a river that tends to flood when it rains, you should choose to buy flood insurance.
As far as the views of Hamilton and Madison, not being a history scholar such as yourself, I'd be very interested in exploring the difference in their philosophies. Can you briefly explain it or provide a good source? The topic sounds intriguing.
New Hampshire and Wisconsin do not require insurance. In Virginia, insurance isn't required, but a $500/year financial obligation to the state is required to register a vehicle. And keep in mind, one is not required to buy a car in the first place. Though, if ACA stands, you better start saving for your next new car to offset GM's bad numbers.
So does the Federal Government, Candice which is why it mandates that kind of insurance in certain areas. And before you say as you are wont to do, "well, just don't buy your house by the river, then the Federal Government can't mandate it" you should know that in areas like this one, which is an ancient lake bed, the flood plain is redrawn frequently. Ergo, people who bought houses not in the flood plain are all of a sudden in one and required to get insurance. So the govt. already is in the insurance mandating business. Get it?
One is always surprised when dear Candice admits that she doesn't know something. A source? How about the Federalist papers.
Wow! I learn something every day. My neighbors in WI, who drive into St. Paul MN everyday for work don't have to have auto insurance!! Who would have thought. I will be sure to keep my distance when I see a WI licence plate. You just never know...
The things you learn on First Read.
newday,
I am no expert, but my recollection is that the general welfare clause is mentioned just TWICE.
First comment is that all the time and devotion to the Constitution, it seems incredibly incongruent that something that liberals place so much power and emphasis on would only be mentioned twice.
In fact, 50% of the time it was mentioned (1) is in the Preamble which nothing more than an introduction or statement of purpose in broad terms of what is to. In addition it is simply a general phrase that establishes no definition, no explanation, no development, no powers, no nothing.
It is absurd to suggest some general phrase in the Preamble would usurp the defined, the delineated and developed powers in the Constition itself - why bother with everything else when it is already controlled and subordinate to the Preamble.
The second mention to general welfare has to do with taxing / spending for the general welfare of the nation - such as national defense - services that local communities and states could not provide - only those the federal government could solely provide.
Before we get into living definitions and other bs of what the founding dads intended or would have intended if they invisioned TV and "the Real Housewives", etc. let me just say that in the context of Obamacare/general welfare, that Obama specifically sold this and presented as NOT BEING A TAX. )Remember all the pledges for no new taxes?)
Therefore, the general welfare clause certainly doesn't apply because the only mention in the Constitution applies to taxes.
I'm not sure about Hamilton or Jefferson or the middle road Madison on a lot of stuff, but I have no doubt about how they would feel about my previous statement.
How would Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson feel about the federal government providing flood insurance for every citizen?
You got to be kidding me.
Hello Candice,
Long time - no see your comments.
Hope you are doing well.
Okay. So I buy a house and later discover it's in the middle of a flood plain. I then make the decision that in order to protect my investment and my home, I better buy insurance. I can make responsible decisions for myself and my family. You, on the other hand, discover your misfortune and don't act until the government tells you that you should. You need the government to force you to be responsible. That's the difference. Rhetorically speaking, of course.
You shouldn't be surprised, NewDay. I'm the reasonable one! You've written about the Federalist papers and the philosophies of our Founding Fathers before, and it's always sparked my interest. I can't seem to find the time though to pour through 85 sections.....seems a little daunting....So I'll turn to you for your expertise. Is there a particular section that you were referring to in your previous post?
Hi, Bob.
I've been busy. I find time to read FR, but don't find much time to participate. Don't worry...even when you don't hear from me.....I'm usually reading you! I hope all is good with you.
whoops - edit didn't get in - sorry about it being hard to read newday.
Good Monday Night futbol game though.
Sorry, Bob, the General Welfare in the Taxation Clause may apply, and the Madison Hamilton debate tells us why.
Candice, you are so far off on the flood insurance issue that I really don't know where to begin. Re read my previous post, because therein lies the answer. What you are not getting is that flood insurance is not a choice in some areas, and even if you do due diligence on where your house is, and at what elevation it is at, you may wind up having to buy that insurance years after you took out your mortgage. Just happened to friends of mine.
newdaydawning- like most libs you are incorrect on Hamilton's viewpoint of the General Welfare
In Federalist 41 Hamilton argued that the “general welfare” clause could not be used to expand the federal government beyond what was intended.
At #4.22 -- Funny, I don't see the name "Hamilton" anywhere on the current Supreme Court (you know, those people who the Constitution appoints to oversee the ultimate Constitutionality of laws)
Newday,
I understand your point and the scenario you described. I'm sorry for your friends. I can only imagine the added expense they hadn't plan for (because they didn't think they needed to) let alone the stress of now having to worry about the possible hazard of winding up on a flood plain.
I would think, however, it's not the Federal Government that's requiring insurance but the bank - to protect their investment of the mortgaged property.
The initial point, though, is people tend to make decisions to protect themselves (or they should) - the government's role could be to educate people through the already established education system if role models and parenting doesn't work. A federal mandate is a slippery slope. The government can't legislate people to be responsible. It's a lot of money from the pockets of tax payers to try to do so.
No, Candice, it is a Federal Mandate under FEMA.
Larry, you have been so consistently wrong about the Founders that I laugh when I read what you write. The piece on Jefferson and the "church" in the House was particularly funny. Do you know what that was? A salon. Jefferson was there because he spent his whole life fascinated by religion. He studied all of them, and since the meetings held in the House were ecumenical and educational, he was there to learn. There were many flirtations going on as well. Young ladies would retire to the fireplace and meet with their beaux. Jefferson was most emphatic about the Separation, even to not declaring a day of Thanksgiving, since he felt that it was not up to him as President to order people to pray. And by the way, the right wing David Bartons of those days hated Jefferson. You did know that did you not?
As to Hamilton: 1791 Report on Manufacturers. Hamilton took a more expansive view then did Madison. And spare me "you liberals." You are not that impressive.
MJMullin2: But did you see Hamilton as FOUNDER, you know like in Founder's intent?
At #4.26 -- And? How does that in any way change what I said earlier?
You really don't know this? Founders intent: As in is this law Constitutional.
newdaydawning- your self created revisionist history is just that- YOUR revisionism, not based upon the record
People in a flood plain should have insurance so we the TAXPAYER don't have to rebuild it on my dime !!!!These low areas that always flood should be abandoned unless the owners want to foot the bill, I don't care what the reason they try to throw at us , I'd even abandon New Orleans , the planning for that area was a big mistake that shouldn't be foisted on the American people any more !!!
Why don't these nine old people get off their asses and decide this thing? What are they paid to do?
Let them look at the issues and decide.
This thing is tying the country in knots.
The case hasn't been brought before them yet. There is a process that must be followed. We are still a nation of laws.
As a Canadian I really don't understand why this should tie anyone up in knots. Seems simple to me.
Give the Teabags a little more time and they can make sure to eliminate any remaining laws that might benefit the ordinary citizen.
I think you have that backwards. TEA Party members support a constitutional government that is limited in scope as was intended by the founding fathers.
It wouldn't be tying the country in knots if the right hadn't decided to suddenly be against what they used to support. Talk about flip flops.
Right Go usa, the tea party is for limiting corporate involvment except they made sure and kept the tax cuts for the rich as the basic for all agreements. Therefore keeping the rich and corporations firmly in charge.
It appears the tea party talks out of both sides of their mouths.
If the constitution really is so important, the first thing you need to do is get religion out of politics like the founders intended.
People should buy their own insurance and not force others to buy it for them! If they can't afford it then they can look for their church for help or the truly generous in the country can start a foundation for them - which would be much more efficient in weeding out fraudulent claims and people who can afford to buy it themselves than the federal government could do. I just heard that there is 165 million dollars in government pay checks sent to dead people each of the past five years and one guy had been dead 37 years. And that the recent stimulus fiasco sent 90,000 checks to dead people and people in jail. The GAO said there is 180 billion in fraud, waste, and duplication in the federal bureaucracy now - imagine what this usurpation of 16% of the country GDP would add.
Maybe we should one day have a single-payer health insurance program but the federal bureaucracy should not be the one to run it! The are proven to be incompetent and corrupt. Maybe Walmart could run it - anyone but the federal government!
watermoon - and if you let the insurance companies run it they will rob you blind! Duh!
American's first- it appears you got cheated out of actually learning US History
Our founders were emphatic that the foundation of our liberty and this republic WAS SPECIFIC TO OUR CHRISTIANITY.
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." -John Jay, Constitutional Framer and 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
"What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ." - President George Washington Speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs, May 12, 1779
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”-Patrick Henry
MARYLAND SUPREME COURT, 1799: "Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty."
“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.” (John Adams Letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813)
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution - “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to The Ten Commandments of God.”
in 1854 the United States House of Representatives declared `It [religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests … Christianity; in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions’;
From the Library of Congress (Religion and the Federal Govt)
“It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.”
Larry, You are SO full of it. The Founders were careful to divorce this country from Christianity or any other religion. I write this not for Larry who is incapable of learning, he is of the David Barton Revisionist history bent, and there is nothing in this world that will dissuade him. I write this for the rest of you who know he is wrong, but do not know why: It is simply this. The Founders had a blank slate. They could set up this country to be anything they wanted it to be. For example: The Bill of Rights: very simple thing for them to substitute the Ten Commandments if they had wanted to, which they didn't. Further: Let's hear from Madison: Madison was outraged that a bill was introduced into the General Assembly of Virginia to levy a general assessment for the support of teachers of religion. It caused Madison to write Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments that was a powerful argument against state supported religion. It defies credulity that the Founders intent was to set up a "Christian Nation" when this became a bulwark against establishing religious tax. This document is available on line. I found it for this purpose on the We the People Religious Freedom page.
Jefferson for his part, wrote a history of the Law, the thesis of which was that Christianity was not part of Common law and never had been. That letter to Major John Cartwright, painstakingly traces the evolution of law, Jefferson's main point being that law existed before Christianity. That can be found on line too, my source is Is Christianity Part Of English Common Law. by Jim Allison.
But two of the Founders put the lie for all time to this canard in the U.S Treaty of Tripoli 1796-1797. This treaty developed during Washington's time in office, was considered so important in its time that it was published in newspapers. It was passed unanimously by House and Senate and signed by President John Adams. It contains this passage: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Mussulmen, and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The Founders are also specific in the Constitution itself: Article VI, Section 3 "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust in the United States. A reasonable person must ask, if the Founders wanted this to be a Christian Nation, why would that be there?
I could go on, but I won't. I'm tired. It has been a long day. I am sure that just as today, the Founders had their own individual beliefs. What they agreed on is that those beliefs must be allowed, each to his or her own conscience, which is why the Establishment Clause exists.
Mouth? I was thinking, well, farther south.
Once again newdaydawning you demonstrate what a liar you truly are
That section dealing with religious tests was over denominationalism, not Christian faith.
Madison explains this in Federalist 52 and that he wished they had expressed it better or left it out completely
Even though you don't smoke and drink, but you do work and pay taxes, you are required by law to buy insurance so those that do smoke and drink and ruin their health and don't pay taxes can have insurance. And to top it all off you have a political group in this country that thinks they can justify this madness. Keep on drinking the koolaide freeloaders
Ah yes, more from our revisionist Larry. By the way Larry, speaking of lying: Your quote on Washington? I went in search of it, because it defies everything I know about the man. And guess what? Washington said nothing about American students being taught Christian history. That is more from poor deluded Barton. Your assignment today is to find the REAL quote, and the history of that quote. That is, if you are not totally blinded by the "light".
As to the religious test? I stand by that post in its entirety, you are just wrong headed.
It's a tax. The Congress has the power of taxation. End of story.
Only, it isn't a tax. Go back and listen to the people who passed it. It is a penalty.
They certainly didn't sell it as a tax when they were passing it with only Democrat votes. The only thing bipartisan about 0bummercare is the opposition to it.
"For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”
When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”
Maybe this explains some of the confusion. But now to prove that it is constitutional, they are saying it is a tax.
I think that is called trying to have it both ways.
No.. the Court will find this is in the Commerce section and does not apply there. If it did pass the people who are being asked to pay don't have jobs so it's back to the average strapped American to fund this. . If we did not have the McCain wars we could do a lot of things. Graham no better!
Our wonderful country so divided with no one to lead it.. so Sad.. I love my Country and just feel so bad there is such a Power Vacum. I hope one of the true Patroits out there that has elected not to run will come forward and help save all of us. God Bless America and all of its People!
Yet there will be those that won't be taxed, and those that will be and have to pay for others. I find that in itself unconstitutional.
Obama specifically said it was a penalty and not a tax when it was being forced through Congress. He had promised to not raise taxes on the middle class and if this were called a tax it would have been yet another lie he was caught in. Of course, following the liberal mantra that the end justifies the means, he will most probably say it is a tax now.
watermelon - oops I mean Watermoon - what does it really matter what you call it?
So let's repeal the 16TH Amendment
Great White, What does it matter what YOU think. YOUR not an AMERICAN, You do not live here.
Now you seem to forget that as originally drafted it was a mandate, not a tax. The administration lawyers deemed it a tax AFTER the fact, and were smacked down by a judge who stated that it was orginally a mandate, meaning you MUST have insurance or else go to jail. So, are you ok with going to jail or being forced to buy health insurance? That is the big sticking point, remove that and the whole house of cards falls apart.
Also, canadian observer, why do you care one way or the other what happens with healthcare in the US?
It is not a tax. The government is not selling or providing it. If all had to pay for the coverage then let the government provide it. I refuse to keep paying for the 50% who put nothing into the country. Let them provide for themselves. Most people in "poverty" in the USA are wealthy by world standards. Let them do without cell phones, cable, cars, dish washers, air conditioners and having brats they cannot afford. Stop school free meals. Live in barracks and eat at public kitchens. When they get tired of it maybe they will find a job.
Are you sure it is a tax? The democrats stated many times while trying to ram this bill down our throats, that THIS WAS NOT A TAX!!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html
Keep in mind that the democrats did not say it was a tax, until it was taken to the courts.
It is amazing how much obama, pelosi, and reid lied about what was in the healthcare bill and what it would do to us. Just so the federal government could have more control of our lives.
I'm not putting much credence in the Supreme Court!They'll rule in favor of Oblabber mouth.That's why he went directly to them.Kiss your freedom of choice good bye.
I see there's a bunch of cheerleaders on here in favor of this Stupid Thing.
One can hope that the Supremes will follow the constitution.
No the Court will over turn it. It's a conservative group and that alone will push it to failure!
gloria -
After Obama reamed the Supreme Court during his 2010 State of the Union Address? I think Obama and the democrats burned their bridges on this one.
The thing is, Kagan should recuse herself since she helped to write/argue for it before she became a Justice. In her situation there is a clear conflict of interest. The Situation with Clarence Thomas is not a conflict of interest however, although the liberals would wish that it were.
gloria, I hope you and black_belt are just the ordinary, garden variety troll trying to get a rise out of people because if you are a "card carrying" member of the TP you both sure know how to show the nasty side of it with your Oblabber mouth and Obummercare. And if the TP wonders why their favorability is dropping all they have to do is look at comments like those left by the two of you. You really know how to set a bad example!
"No the Court will over turn it. It's a conservative group and that alone will push it to failure!"
Umm. And this is following the Constitution? Give your head a shake!
Aw Allie did we upset you?Boo Hoo!Grow Up!
While I believe there are good things in the bill, mandating insurance is wrong, especially when we know very well who will be getting it for free.
The problem I have with this is that the SCOTUS is the most worthless branch of the US government. They work harder to not work hoping that the issue goes away on its own, and that is reprehensible. I understand that there are channels that are supposed to be followed, however, why is it not also their responsibility when they see a wrong to step in?
That is their role. Please do some research.
I know much about the government, and it is my understanding that any legislation is supposed to go through the supreme court to check for constitutionality before it is enforced, thereby protecting its citizens civil rights.
I think that you throw out the mandating insurance thing that blows the whole thing. If we allow people to wait until their sick, buy health insurance, then drop it when they are better the whole thing goes bankrupt.
The problem with the mandate is that I spend $6,500 a year on insurance that is worthless because my deductible is $6,000, so my family can't afford to go to the doctor. So basically, I am wasting $6,500 a year. The largest lobbying group "for" the health care bill was the insurance companies. What I want is a catastrophic health care plan that costs $2,000 a year and covers anything over $20,000. That way, we can go to the doctor. That is my choice, not the governments.
My wife has an uncle that lives in Canada. He needs a surgery and they have put him off for four years. Is that what you want? We lose freedoms daily, and I refuse to lose the freedom of how I chose to take care of my health. Government mandate is dangerous, especially because they will ultimately have the choice over who lives and who dies.
Well, John, your comments sounds like you can afford to buy health insurance, why don't you? Where do you get the $6,500 a year insurance with a $6,000 deductible?? Good luck finding a catastrophic health care plan for $2,000 a year, too.(so you can go to the doctor?) Why do you think the cost of insurance for healthcare and the lack of it has caused so many bankruptcies and depleted lifesavings for many? And you are completely wrong about the mandate and anyone making the choice over who lives or dies.
I'm not trying to be facetious but I would really like to know where you are getting this misinformation.
$6,500 and $6,000 is what I have for a family of five self-employed. $2,000 a year for a catastrophic is what I would like to have offered by the government instead of the mandates they are requiring. The mandate requires that you buy insurance(I wonder who's best interest that is?), it is no guarantee that it is even remotely full coverage. And when a government is in charge of what is covered, and that will happen, they will be making life and death decisions.
If you don't believe what insurance costs when no one is helping pay, do a quote online for yourself and family of five, and then say I'm wrong.
john, perhaps this site will help dispel a few myths about the Affordable Care Act
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/
The mandate requires that everyone have health insurance by setting up exchanges with pooled insurance companies-that keeps the cost beneath what private insurance ever could. No one will be making life and death decisions-that has lie been totally debunked as have many others. Please let me know if this information helps dispel any worries.
And yes, I believe you about your insurance cost and that is actually below the national average for a family of 5. I'm surprised it isn't closer to double that amount.
HOLDING INSURANCE COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE
Bringing Down Health Care Premiums
Effective January 1, 2011
To ensure premium dollars are spent primarily on health care, the new law generally requires that at least 85% of all premium dollars collected by insurance companies for large employer plans are spent on health care services and health care quality improvement. For plans sold to individuals and small employers, at least 80% of the premium must be spent on benefits and quality improvement. If insurance companies do not meet these goals because their administrative costs or profits are too high, they must provide rebates to consumers.
This is directly from your link, and I am here to tell you that none, yes that is right, none of the $6,500 I have spent on premiums this year was for actual health care for my family. So, either the insurance companies don't know what 80% of $6,500 is, or they are in violation of the law, or there is a complete lack of oversight. My guess, it might be all three.
Take note of the effective date.
Some have already received rebates from their private insurer because of that provision. Any oversight would be done by your state. I suggest you contact your insurance company and your state Attorney General immediately. and not necessarily in that order...
John, You misunderstand. You 6500 dollars was for what you paid for the benefits of your insurance policy whether you were sick or not. If your were sick your insurance company paid according to the policy for doctor, hospital etc. The article you site refers to insurance company must use 80-85% of their dollars for benefits. So others in your insurance pool might have medical bills in the last year that were $500,000for one person,etc. In total they must pay out 80% of their preminum dollars for benefits.
You were heathy this year. next year you might need medical care that will cost $500,000. Your insurance will pay your costs according to your benefits of your policy.
In my state of MN all insurance companies must be non profits. They must keep a percentage of money in reserves, and a reasonable amount for administrative costs and cost of doing business as an insurance company.
NorthstarDFL
Thanks for the clarification. Isn't healthcare the largest industry left in MN. And actually, they are listed as not-for profit. That means they can. I am also from MN
The sad thing is, knock on wood, is that my family has been healthy for twenty eight years, and the whole time I've been paying for others. Still, I wish their was a catastrophic insurance system set up, because it would cost me over $12,000 anyway before I saw a dime for what I am paying for.
John, a fellow Minnesotan!! Yes, United HeathCare the largest insurance company in the US has it corporate offices here. The irony is they cannot sell insurance here in MN because they are a for profit company. Go figure.They were started by a local doctor who saw managed care as a wave of the future many years ago.
You and your family are living right with no major heath care issues in 28 years.:)
My sister in law had only catastrophic insurance in florida. Her premiums were $12,000 a year with a $10,000. deductible. So she had a gall bladder attack and had surgery . She was in the hospital for five days.She paid the first 10,000. She thought the rest would be covered. Oh no, the policy also had a copay after her deductible. She is loving the Heath Care Reform Law. She owns her own business and now can get insurance for small business owners and her premiums are like $500.00 a month.
Good for her! Health insurance is a scam. I just wish the two hundred grand that I have paid in my life would be taken into account for a basis on my premiums.
Have you heard of medical tourism? I was talking to someone a couple of years ago that had surgery that was estimated at $30,000. A smart woman that she is, scheduled an appointment for the surgery in Costa Rica. She flew there, had her surgery, and they put her up in a resort for recovery for two weeks. It cost her $6,000.
The beauty of it is that most of the doctors there were taught in the US. Costa Rica has a longer life span than the US. They have socialized medicine, and it costs them almost nothing per citizen. They don't prescribe drugs for no reason like we do to appease a patient, and quite often prescribe a natural remedy that doesn't have side affects. Now that is a system that works. On the other hand, the prime minister from Canada needed surgery a couple of years ago. He flew to Florida for his. Socialized medicine can be good and it can be bad. I think it actually comes down to people understanding that if they live a "Pura Vida", health takes care of itself. It is the "just in case" that keeps me paying premiums.
By the way, Who is your sister getting her insurance through?
john, I will let you know tomorrow. I will call her. I will be back on this same thread at your post.
Meanwhile, yes I have been to Costa Rica and saw all the ads for mostly cosmetic surgery. They do have great health care. Many US and Canadian have moved there for retirement. It is a nice country, longest democracy in latin america , no army, great natural resources, parks and of course the ocean.
Be back tomorrow...with your answer
Thanks, I know, in a couple of months, I'll wish I was there!
John, My sister has insurance with Cigna, and pays about $500. for single coverage. She owns her own business.
0bamacare will be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS in the Oct - June term that they are just beginning. Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote and he has said he won't retire while 1 Term 0bama is POTUS because he doesn't want him replacing him. That should tell you that the vote will be at least 5 - 4 against 0bamacare. Just think - when 0bamacare gets knocked out 1 Term 0bama's signature accomplishment will be the repealing of Bill Clinton's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. ha ha
Bill Clinton also signed the repeal of Glass Stegal.
Unfortunately hundreds of billions of dollars will have been wasted on the parts already implemented.
Pray tell, Black Belt, which article or amendment does the ACA supposedly violate?
A good decision, I have been saying for months that the law should have been fast tracked to the Supreme Court long ago. This would all be settled by now.
I must say I am really surprised that the Obama administration is dropping any more appeals but then I guess he is hoping to have it out of the way for next years election.
Oblamo really does not want this going on when he is running
for office. He wants to stand by everhting he promised and the
list what he has done.
who do these courts work for? this should have been done a long time ago. These justices need to get off their lazy as_ses and get this work done. Besides, OBama is FORCING everyone to buy from a private company. This is unconstituational. What next, we all have to buy anything the government sells us?
The courts work for the people to keep the other two branches of government honest, we hope. The states that sued the government over Obamacare has on several occasions asked the Obama Administration to fast track to the supreme court and the DOJ always refused and asked it to play out in the appeals courts first. It has been the Obama Administration that has prolonged this court battle.
So pray tell, which article, clause, or amendment does the ACA supposedly violate?
Toasty, I'd like to know that, too. I can't believe, after all this time, the amount of misinformation and lies perpetuated about the Affordable Care Act.
I suppose the TP will be dusting off their "Keep your Gubmint Hands Off my Medicare" signs again!
Is this not what everyone has wanted since it was passed? Hard Headed SOBama!
Truth is something needed to be done with Health Care but the government can not run anything SS, Post Office, Medicare/Medicaid, are all broke and they want to rise taxes on us to cover their $16 doughnuts.
Don't forger Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - and now the failure of the crony capitalism that is sending 10 billion in corporate welfare to the Green Corporations - the first of which already failed, costing the tax-payers 500 million dollars. Of course we only represent 52% of the country since most liberals pay no income tax and don't care how it is spent, so long as it gets to them or their causes.
And then there is the $7500 per car that tax-payers give to anyone buying a GM Volt or the Tesla electric car - latter owned by a major Obama contributor. Usually the liberal screams against corporate welfare but are being very silent as these Green scandals unfold.
Seems to me that it saved a lot of jobs.
Saved a lot of lives too.
You can't force people to get health insurance or face financial penalties.
It's like the old-time Mafia tactics of forcing you to pay for protection or they would destroy your business.
They're already doing that with automobile insurance and the police are their enforcers!
The government is being run by hoodlums and gangsters!
It is the federal government that is enjoined in the constitution - not the state governments. State governments could force you to buy health insurance just as they can auto insurance. The constitution was developed by the framers to limit the federal powers - not the state's. The federal government cannot force you to buy auto insurance!
Why not? They force you to get homeowner's insurance to get a mortgage don't they? They force you to get automobile insurance in order to get a driver's license / vehicle title don't they? Try getting caught driving without one. Authorities take a dim view of that stuff.
If the constitution was developed to limit the federal powers, why did it replace the existing Articles of Conferation that was already about limited federal government and strong state governments?
And why did the framers call the documents they wrote to promote ratification of the same constitution "The Federalist Papers"?
The 'limited government' types get it exactly wrong. The constitution was written to make the federal government the strongest power in the nation, not the states.
Wrong Jon, We are not called the United Federal Government now are we? Lincoln started the ball rolling giving the Federal power. They have for a long time now Abused and Exceeded that authority. It is time to REIN them in.
Time for the Supreme Court to kill it and send Obama a message that you can go against the Constitution even with your cronnies in Congress passing anti-Constitutional legislation.
Uncertainty has been resulting in slower economic growth than that which we, as a country, need. By allowing the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the Health Care legislation, we will have greater certainty regardless of the ruling by the Court. The Justice Department, presumably with Obama's blessing, has done the right thing. Now lets hope the Supreme Court expedites the process as much as possible.
Thank you President Obama.
When/if the supreme court declares this unconstitutional you will see a sharp increase in hiring. When/if a republican president undoes the thousands of new regulations against banks and businesses there will be millions of new jobs. If he also stops the corporate tax so that corporations will bring the 1.6 trillion in cash they have overseas without fear of losing 35% of it to this corrupt federal bureaucracy cesspool we will have an economy booming once again.
Getting rid of the 0bama regime is going to cause one of the biggest economic expansions our country has every seen. If 0bamacare were to be implemented and 0bama re-elected the country would go into full fledged depression - making 1929 look like a picnic. The facts may not be pretty but that is what would happen.
Obamacare will be gone soon after 2012 when hes voted out of office for being such a failture as President and I hope the rest of the Democrats gets beat out to... we need a real change not a promised change.
Goodbye Obama and Obama Care. Obama down, looser, s. muff and anytrhing else that pertains to a looser without a law degree.
Perfect timing. The fate of ObamaCare was determined three years ago when Obama foolishly chastised the Supreme Court majority for the campaign finance ruling with Kennedy writing the majority opinion. He did it on worldwide TV in his first state of the union address in front of a joint Congress and within feet of the justices. That really pissed off the justices, so much so that several have said they will no longer attend Obama speeches. The chickens have come HOME to ROOST!!
yes it was obama care is dead on arrival.
yes, because childish grudges set precedence for supreme court decisions. the sad thing is, with this court, it just might.
That and the fact that it is unconstitutional.
zaruski
The court rulings always have a ideological factor. When was the last time the Clinton appointees sided with the conservative wing of the court and vice versa? If you want to win cases in the Supreme Court, you have to win elections. Having only one 2-term President in the last 60 years (Clinton) won't get it done. Say bye bye to ObamaCare.
The judges will not be influenced by that slur from Obama - at least the conservative judges will not. And most of the judges do go to the state of the union.
It all depends on their judicial philosophy. The ones who believe that they should interpret the constitution and not amend it will vote it down. Those who cite a "living constitution" that allows them to amend without going through the 37 state vote will vote that it is fine as written.It is clearly 4-4 with Kennedy going either way as he has been flip-flopping between the two positions.
It is so important that a republican win in 2012 so that he can replace Ginsberg when she dies/retires. She is left of Karl Marx and replacing her with a conservative will save the country..
Correction: That’s 2-term Democrat President
Actually Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson were both two-term Democrat presidents - liberals hate it when you don't say Democratic. The distinction you are looking for is a Democrat that was elected to two terms. Those two finished a previous term and then were elected to one more when they were eligible to be elected twice more.
"...replacing her with a conservative will save the country.."
Ruth would probably disagree.
And, she wouldn't be alone.
"Perfect timing. The fate of ObamaCare was determined three years ago when Obama foolishly chastised the Supreme Court majority for the campaign finance ruling with Kennedy writing the majority opinion. He did it on worldwide TV in his first state of the union address in front of a joint Congress and within feet of the justices. That really pissed off the justices, so much so that several have said they will no longer attend Obama speeches. The chickens have come HOME to ROOST!"
So - will they vote on the law or take revenge? So much for your Constitution.
Great White,
Let's say a justice finds legal precedence supporting the constitutionality of forcing citizens to buy health insurance as well as precedence showing otherwise with some grey areas. In such a case, ideology and personal preference will play a huge role in his decision. Obama's rant against the justice in front of the whole world only makes it that much easier for him to decide. When someone poked you in the eye, you want to poke him back.
Doesn't sound constitutional to me. Trouble with your goverment is (and I mean, the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court - even the Executive) are all bought and paid for by big business. Can't get around it no matter what. Of course not all individuals are bought and paid for. That's the trick - you have to figure out which ones.
So which specific article or amendment does the ACA supposedly violate?
All of it. The federal government doesn't have the authority to penalize for not engaging in commerce. They cannot compel commerce so that they then can regulate it. If they can do that, then we have no protections from government.
The specific article, clause, or amendment, please.
christ. like, 99.9% of people don't understand exactly what this is all about. what is at stake by prosecutors is the individual mandate. take away the individual mandate, and now insurance companies are forced to cover pre existing conditions, cannot have lifetime award caps, and cannot rescind policies for frivolous reasons.
i like that idea, actually. that way i dont have to buy insurance until i actually need it!
Zaruski--- That is exactly what most people will do without a mandate.
Damn! I broke my leg! Well I guess I better buy Health Insurance. Then when my my leg is healed I can cancel that insurance. What a country.
Making everyone pay for something that they will use brings down the cost for everyone, that's why it's in their to begin with.
Actually it is not that simple. The Dems had to get the House to accept the Senate version with no changes because Massachusetts had sent a conservative to replace Kennedy. The Senate had purposely decided that the whole bill was passed as a unit because they could get their votes if the bill could later be taken in parts. So the bill does not allow the court to rule that one part is bad but the rest is okay. If the court decides that the penalty part is bad then it is all dead.
Hopefully the GOP will now do the health care piecemeal and include the parts you mention. And they will finally do something about capping malpractice awards which the Dems left out in order to appease their lawyer lobby. It will save billions when doctors no longer need to prescribe tests and procedures that they know are unnecessary just to avoid being sued.
No matter the opinions here for or against. This cannot stand and will go down by S Court 5/4
I'm thinking 5/2.
In favor of the ACA.
Richard -
There are 9 (nine) justices.
Excuding the two that should recuse themselves.
I count only one who should recuse herself.
It's great that people who need H Care could get it but when this goes down by the S Court the Republicans will not let it come up again. No one in their Party appears to be able to be rational in their approach for people needs. They could fund everything if they stopped the Republicans wars!
You mean the wars that the liberal congress voted for? lol....
Obama's had almost 3 years to end the wars and what does he do, spend a couple of billion to aid in a third war in Libya. At least President Bush had a bipartisan vote from members of congress before going to war.
yawn, we hardly "went to war" in libya. And iraq is winding down as per the original timeframe. And obama promised to increase the effort in afghanistan (to try and make up for the CF from bush's mishandling of it originally), so your comment about "having almost 3 years to end the wars" makes no sense of course.
Your right vermont, When we in the Military KILL PEOPLE we are Hardly at war. What are you an IDIOT or just never put YOUR LIFE on the line?
Note there are only a few people who write an opinion here for others to take a crack at. 300 mil people in US so this amounts to Hot air. Don't think this would hold up as Statistically valid as a sample to say that it represents America.
Obama 500 staffers read each of thes and have to report every day on the Pulse of America. What do you think they say? They recommend buying or lending money to that Solar company that went Bankrupt!
And that was just 500 million of the 10 billion set aside for such corporations. They argue that they shouldn't stop just because the one case went bad, even though it is one for one failures. Seems to contradict the policy this same idiot used when he shut down the entire oil development in the Gulf when one rig blew up and there were many proven successes in the Gulf - one failure among thousands.
Add this to the $7500 subsidy for each electric car sold by GM and Tesla. Where are the screams from the left over this egregious corporate welfare? Instead they decry the 4 billion in tax credits - not an outright gift but just a credit against the amount taken in taxes - that encourages risky exploration by oil companies. Taking less in taxes is corporate welfare but the outright of funneling taxpayer money into Green corporate coffers is not?
obama health care should be repealed its not upto the goverment to provide health care its not up to me to provide my neighbors with health care its up to each person to be responsible for their own health care insurance companys should be allowed to sale across state lines let the market drive the price and it will come down if you think the goverment should have the right to force a product on yhou then how wouild you like it if your car dealer decided you should have a tune up on your car every year rather you want it or not and you wouid have to have it done if his health care stands then watch out every business will want the same advantages and start lobbying for special treatment too how much of your freedom are you willing to sacerfices remember if you don`t work them you don`t deserve anything and if you fill so bad about the poor go do something about it help them out of your own pocket and don`t tell me how i have to spend my money
And the peanut gallery cheers!!! "Let em die" "Let em die"
You tell em' Tom!!
If you gotta buy insurance for your damn home and car, then your body should not have to assume a lower position on the priority shelf.
BathBarn, did you dust off your "Keep Your Gubmint Hands off My Medicare" sign yet? You're going to need it if the GOP/TP get any part of Paul Ryan's Road to Oz plan implemented or the GOP/TP gain any traction in 2012.
Gopisextinct.
The Federal govt doesn't require you to buy auto insurance-as per the 10th amendment it's a state issue. And last time I looked, not everybody owns a car. Furthermore as others have stated, the states require liability to protect others in the event you inflict damage on their persons or property. It's not a benefit for you.
At #25.5 -- It's a "state's issue" BECAUSE Congress has never passed a law.
If Congress so chose to do so, the "Necessary and Proper Clause" (as defined by Article One, Section 8, Clause 18 of the United States Constitution) would mean that Congress' law would OVERRIDE the state's previous laws, even though they would accomplish the same goal (again, speaking to a demand to carry auto insurance).
Your selective interpretation of the Tenth Amendment has been tried many times, but it has NEVER held up in front of the Supreme Court. Specifically in United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court asserted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."
If that's not clear enough, then I don't know what is.
Clarence Thomas should not be on this case he has a vested interest - actually Clarence Thomas should be on the Supreme Court period!
Elena Kagen should not be on this case. She has already done direct work in support of Obamacare. This is a direct conflict of interest. She should recuse herself.
Then definitely Clarence Thomas can't rule on this, given the money he and his wife got paid fighting against the health care laws.
"Oh happy day..." Just can't wait for this Supreme Court to decisively overturn this piece of Obama's socialist agenda!
there is no chance of a "decisive" overturn, at best it will be 5-4. And "socialist agenda"? lol. You don't know what socialism is, apparently.
Good point. Redistribution of wealth is a communist position, not socialist.
if you think obama has a communist agenda then you are either clueless or are a mindless obama hater. which is it? :)
What Mr. Johns, Mr. Gingrich, and others brandishing the "socialist" s-word are really complaining of is a return to the policies of John Maynard Keynes, the English economist who advocated vigorous government involvement in the economy, from regulation to pump priming, says labor historian Peter Rachleff of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn.
"Socialism suggests getting rid of capitalism altogether," says Dr. Rachleff. "Mr. Obama is not within a million miles of an ideology like that."
For what it's worth, socialists deny that Obama is one of them – and even seem a bit insulted by the suggestion.
"I have been making a living telling people Obama is not a socialist," says Frank Llewellyn, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America. "It's frustrating to see people using our brand to criticize programs that have nothing to do with our brand and are not even working."
Grover you just make things up and they are true? Clinton was not impeached because of sex life - although getting a blow job from a 21-year old intern in the oval office could have been sufficient grounds for impeachment. Neither was he impeached for lying to the American people. Clinton lied to a grand jury and that is a felony. A felony is a cause for impeachment.
Now telling a lie to the American people about a felony in which he had no part in order to cover up an offense by his friends would not be an impeachable offense, but Democrats were ready to do so to Nixon. It all depends who is in control of the Senate doesn't it?
In my book, with the 5 Justices that believe in Capitalism on board, that is decisive. I'm under no illusions that the other 4 very liberal Justices will vote to keep Obamacare. Obama is a Socialist; anytime anyone wants the govt (public) to control everything, that meets the basic definition of Socialism. Granted the concept is more complex than that but you get the basic idea.
Black Repub - tell that to the 18 to 24 yr olds that are now on their parents insurance because they can not get a job - tell that to the people who were denied Health Insurance because of pre-existing conditions - what back woods did you come out of? Don't answer that I know who you are a selfish - non-thinking human being - who have probably never ventured out of your sphere of friends who think the rest of the world does not exist - how sad - that we have such ignorant people amongst us
Some things should be for-profit; other things should be for the public good. That's the way it's always been. In 50 years, people will be amazed that the the right to be alive and healthy used to be for-profit, and reserved only for the rich. Just like public libraries and public schools, the next generation will take public health care for granted as a basic human necessity.
That is the great thing about progress: it can be slowed but never stopped.
At #27.8 -- It will be a 7-2 decision FOR the Government, with Thomas and Scalia dissenting.
Heard it here first, folks!
"Capitalism", "Socialism" or any other POLITICIANS WORDS you happened to parrot have nothing to do with the rule of law, son.
MJM, SON. I stood before the Flag of my Country. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I have bleed for my Country and what it stands for. FREEDOM, Not oppression by a Federal Government. I do not no or care how old you are, only the fact that you want to turn my FREE Country into one ruled by the Federal Government. TRY ME SON.
Gulfwar- well said. I am also a Veteran (1966-1970) and I am sick of these marxists and their attempt to destroy our country.
At #27.12 and #27.13 -- Again, I don't think you read the fine print on the Constitution you claim to so support.
What I'm hearing are two people who "love America" but just can't stand Americans, and that makes your achievements meaningless as the you can't love one and hate another.
P.S. -- The United States has been ruled by the ELECTED Federal Government since the beginning, funny how you people always forget the "E" word when ranting about the "guberment".