Implement Health Care Reform

[westvirginia]

Well written from Boortz...

 

It doesn't take a federal judge or a rocket surgeon to figure this one out: ObamaCare's mandate that individuals MUST purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. But yesterday we had a federal judge in Virginia issue a ruling stating that the individual mandate - the requirement that you carry health insurance or pay a penalty - "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power." U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson writes that the individual mandate "would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance--or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage--it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."

 

So how did we end up here? How did we end up with a president and a Congress that managed to pass a monstrous piece of federal legislation that is unconstitutional? It's easy .. because Democrats genuinely believe that they are right. Democrats believe in the rule of man, compared to the rule of law. They believe that they, as men, are above any written law of the land as established by our Constitution. This is because Democrats are egotistical. They believe that they know what is best for you and that you should not be afforded the freedom to make your own decisions, because you will not make the "right" decisions. In this case, Democrats do not believe that you should have the freedom to choose whether or not to obtain health insurance. Their solution? Government. Use the almighty government to FORCE you to purchase health insurance.

[Ursa Majoris]

Well written from Boortz...

 

I'd still like to know why yesterday's freeloader forcing up the price of health care for everyone by using the ER and not paying the bill is today's constitutional freedom fighter.

[Yukon Cornelius]

dont most states have laws that say you need car insurance?

[Yukon Cornelius]

I'd still like to know why yesterday's freeloader forcing up the price of health care for everyone by using the ER and not paying the bill is today's constitutional freedom fighter.

because they weren't but now they are.

[gbpfan1231]

dont most states have laws that say you need car insurance?

If you don't own a car do you need car insurance?

[Yukon Cornelius]

If you don't own a car do you need car insurance?

so if you are not sick you don't need health insurance?

[cliaz]

I think Lopez is what you're thinking of. The guy involved was named Alfonso, and the case was decided in 1995. In any event, the case involved a federal statute that prohibited having a gun near a school. The Court ruled the Commerce Clause was an insufficient basis for the statute because there was no nexus between guns near schools and the interstate commerce of the gun industry. That case is readily distinguishable from our health care debate because:

- the supremacy clause was not at issue in Lopez;

- Congresses' taxing power was not at issue in Lopez; and

- the issue of national health care is a far more significant nexus to interstate commerce than whether or not it is legal to posses a firearm near a school.

 

It is also worth mentioning that Lopez is basically the only Supreme Court decision to really ever invalidate a federal statute based on the fact that the nexus to interstate commerce was too remote. Simply stated, Lopez is the exception, not the rule.

 

I certainly appreciate that fact that you're bringing actual authority to this discussion, rather than hyperbolic opinion. But I just don't see Lopez as a basis for states to ignore federal statutes they don't like. Will Obamacare survive constitutional challenge? I don't know. Maybe not. But until then states cannot pass laws that contradict, ignore, or conflict with it.

 

 

I do not believe Lopez isn’t the exception to the rule. United States v Morrison (1994) was about a Virginia Tech student by the name of Christy Brzonkala who accused two other students of raping her. She said that James Crawford and Antonio Morrison, who were both football players at Virginia Tech, raped her and under the Universities sexual assault policy, Antonio was found guilty of sexual assault and suspended for 2 semesters while James Crawford was not disciplined (lack of evidence). Antonio filed an appeal with the university and his suspension was dropped and deemed to be excessive.

 

Christy ended up leaving Virginia Tech because of this and then sued Antonio, James and Virginia Tech in a federal district court citing that Antonio and James’ alleged sexual assault violated the 42 USC section 13981 part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) which gives a federal civil solution for any victims of a ‘gender motivated’ attack or violence. These scumbags and their lawyers moved to dismiss Christy’s suit because section 13981 federal civil solution (remedy) was unconstitutional. The case was dismissed. The district court found that Congress did not have the authority to enact section 13981 under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment which congress had specifically noted as the sources of federal authority for it and the court of appeals confirmed this.

 

In this situation, we have one of the most violent and intrusive acts a person and do to a woman (outside of murder). As humans we would want these two guys to have the appropriate level of justice administered and, because we are human, our reaction towards the dismissal would be “So what! Give them what they deserve”. However, the Supreme Court stated that congress lacked the authority to enact a statue under the commerce clause or the Fourteenth Amendment since the statute cannot regulate actions that impact interstate commerce or did it redress harm caused by the state of Virginia.

 

To quote Chief Justice William H Rehnquist, “If the allegations here are true, no civilized system of justice could fail to provide [brzonkala] a remedy for the conduct or Antonio Morrison. But under our federal system that remedy must be provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia and not by the United States.” However, I will note that Justice Stephen Breyer stated that the majority opinion illustrates the difficulty of finding a workable judicial Commerce Clause touch stone and Justice David H Souter said that VAWA contained a massive amount of data compiled by Congress which shows the effects of violence against women on interstate commerce.

 

I think at this point my side of the argument regarding Health Care reform and the one item I pointed out during my initial argument is moot. Virginia Federal judge ruled it is unconstitutional and cited my one argument that congress cannot force people to purchase something. I ultimately believe his ruling will be over turned based on what we’ve discussed in this thread. The federal government will not allow the constitution to stand in their way. There are far too many loop holes in the system.

 

And your point about that states cannot pass laws that contradict, ignore, or conflict with it, that's not entirely true, they can. It would have to be based on the state regulations of insurance vs federal rights over interstate commerce. Even then, I doubt the federal government will acknowledge it because they can always bring up the fact that the federal government regulates the National Flood Insurance Act. That case would take forever and a day to resolve.

 

ETA: I like you yo mama. How we haven't debated these things in the past escapes me. I shall spare you when I take over the world.

Edited December 14, 2010 by cliaz

[yo mama]

Meh. Anti ObamaCare folks are willfully ignorant of a key point. Nobody is forced to buy insurance. You still have a choice - buy insurance or eat the penalty. Kind of like you have a choice of buying homeowners insurance or you don't qualify for a government-backed mortgage. Or buy auto insurance or face a fine for driving without it. Or have business-related liability insurance or not qualify for certain government contracts. Keep your money in your 401(k) or pay a stiff penalty for early withdrawal.

 

Sure, the government is trying to motivate people to buy heath insurance with the threat of economic punishment. But that's nothing new. The constitutional argument would be much stronger if it they made it a crime not to purchase health insurance.

 

Bottom line, people like WV and Perch are right: the government can't FORCE to you buy anything because that would be unconstitutionally beyond Congress' Commerce Clause power. But the government does have the power to TAX people for pretty much any reason, including things that are beyond the scope of Congress' Commerce Clause powers. No one has to like it, but that's what's "constitutional."

 

This presents a classic case of whether people are willing to respect the whole Constitution, or just the parts they like.

Edited December 14, 2010 by yo mama

[Jimmy Neutron]

Meh. Anti ObamaCare folks are willfully ignorant of a key point. Nobody is forced to buy insurance. You still have a choice - buy insurance or eat the penalty. Kind of like you have a choice of buying homeowners insurance or you don't qualify for a government-backed mortgage. Or buy auto insurance or face a fine for driving without it. Or have business-related liability insurance or not qualify for certain government contracts. Keep your money in your 401(k) or pay a stiff penalty for early withdrawal.

 

... but in each of those examples, you have an option that does not pose a "penalty" tax and are left with other viable options.

[yo mama]

... but in each of those examples, you have an option that does not pose a "penalty" tax and are left with other viable options.

I dunno. The analogy to auto insurance is pretty good. You can buy it, or not buy it but suffer the penalty if caught. And that's just under your basic state and local laws. The federal government's power to tax is disturbingly broader in scope.

[Jimmy Neutron]

I dunno. The analogy to auto insurance is pretty good. You can buy it, or not buy it but suffer the penalty if caught. And that's just under your basic state and local laws. The federal government's power to tax is disturbingly broader in scope.

 

You can opt to use other forms of transportation...

[yo mama]

You can opt to use other forms of transportation...

You can also opt to live in a different country.

 

The point is, for those who choose to drive (or live in the US) there are plenty of "either or" decisions we're faced with: act a certain way or face economic penalty. The imposition of a punitive tax does not, by itself, render a law unconstitutional.

Edited December 15, 2010 by yo mama

[Jimmy Neutron]

You can opt to live in a different country.

 

Not analogous to your examples...

[yo mama]

Not analogous to your examples...

I disagree. For many people choosing not to drive is about as practical as choosing to expatriate.

[tosberg34]

I dunno. The analogy to auto insurance is pretty good. You can buy it, or not buy it but suffer the penalty if caught. And that's just under your basic state and local laws. The federal government's power to tax is disturbingly broader in scope.

 

That's right - it's STATE regulated. Where is health-care spelled out in the Constitution as a Federal Government responsibility? If it's not spelled out in the Constitution then it's a STATE responsibility.

 

Also, maybe I missed something but where can you opt out of Obama Care?

[yo mama]

That's right - it's STATE regulated. Where is health-care spelled out in the Constitution as a Federal Government responsibility? If it's not spelled out in the Constitution then it's a STATE responsibility.

Also, maybe I missed something but where can you opt out of Obama Care?

The Supreme Court says otherwise.

[bpwallace49]

Something i dont understand with the Republican position on health care.

 

They are all for selling insurance across state lines, which currently health insurance companies cannot do.

 

But then they trumpet "states rights" in the next breath.

 

Arent these two positions contradictory? And if health insurance was sold across state lines, wouldnt that absolutely be covered under inter-state commerce? (note that since it is not now, that should be the basis of a lawsuit as health insurance companies are singularly encompassed by each state)

[tosberg34]

The Supreme Court says otherwise.

 

Okay, now I missed THAT one too. I couldn't find anything with a feverish google search of "Supreme Court says Health Care is a Federal Government Responsibility". I did find this where they polled a debate audience, but I'm sure they weren't the Supreme Court. And I found this link where some guy reviews the HealthCare.gov website and gives it a seal of approval, but I don't think the reviewer was the Supreme Court. I also found this link where some federal judge rules against the Federal Government mandating insurance coverage, but I'm pretty sure he's just one man and not the Supreme Court.

 

Okay, you got me. Where does it reaffirm Health Care?

Edited December 15, 2010 by tosberg34

[tosberg34]

Something i dont understand with the Republican position on health care.

 

They are all for selling insurance across state lines, which currently health insurance companies cannot do.

 

But then they trumpet "states rights" in the next breath.

 

Arent these two positions contradictory? And if health insurance was sold across state lines, wouldnt that absolutely be covered under inter-state commerce? (note that since it is not now, that should be the basis of a lawsuit as health insurance companies are singularly encompassed by each state)

 

Hmmmm....good point. I'll have to think about that one for a bit.

[yo mama]

Okay, now I missed THAT one too. I couldn't find anything with a feverish google search of "Supreme Court says Health Care is a Federal Government Responsibility". I did find this where they polled a debate audience, but I'm sure they weren't the Supreme Court. And I found this link where some guy reviews the HealthCare.gov website and gives it a seal of approval, but I don't think the reviewer was the Supreme Court. I also found this link where some federal judge rules against the Federal Government mandating insurance coverage, but I'm pretty sure he's just one man and not the Supreme Court.

 

Okay, you got me. Where does it reaffirm Health Care?

Start with the Commerce Clause (though you kind of have to pick what you're complaining about - is Congress trying to regulating the business of health care, or the business of insurance).

 

If you decided "health care," then you'll probably tell me Congress can't "regulate" things like health care, which pertain to the "general welfare." I'm going to agree, but point out that Congress can tax pretty much anything, which is at the heart of the provision people don't like. More to the point, Congress isn't trying so much to regulate how health care is provided - it's merely telling folks to obtain insurance so they can pay for their own health care, instead of expecting everyone else to pay for them.

 

If you know anything about the Constitution, you'll throw the 10th Amendment at me - reminding me that we're a government of limited powers, and that powers not expressly granted to the federal government rest with the states. But then I'm going to point out that since the 1934 Supreme Court decision in Carter v. Carter Coal, the 10th Amendment has been rendered effectively meaningless.

 

If you REALLY know what you're talking about, you'll point out the 1992 Supreme Court case of New York v. United States, where the Court did place *some* limits on Congress via the 10th Amendment, but that's only when Congress is commandeering a state's legislative process by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program. But then I will remind you that Congress is not forcing the STATES to do much of anything - Congress is merely imposing a federal tax on people who choose not to buy insurance. That way, at least they're paying *something.*

 

Please remember: I don't like ObamaCare and I would love to see it repealed. But my respect for the Constitution is greater than my dislike of ObamaCare. Kind of like how I don't like guns, but I still defend the 2nd Amendment. If you only defend the parts you like, then the entire thing becomes vulnerable.

Edited December 15, 2010 by yo mama

[bpwallace49]

Ahh, gotcha. I see where you are coming from now. That's my biggest grip about our federal government. It has, over the decades, increased it's reach where it isn't legally allowed to do so. Our federal government is suppose to be a weaker, central government that regulates interstate commerce, taxes, and can put together a military for defense. In modern times it is this bloated micro manager of our daily lives and infringes on citizens rights to privacy and civil rights. If this is the way our government is suppose to evolve, then the Constitution needs to be changed or a completely new one drafted.

 

I dont by any means that it "micro manages our daily lives", I think you are grossly exaggerating here, but it has very slowly chipped away at areas that the gubmnet shouldnt be involved in.

 

the interpretation of the Commerce clause is the go-to excuse for any regulation or justification of passing legislation by the current party in power. From the health care being regulated under the commerce clause to the abortion that is the Patriot Act and its violation of civil liberties, the desperate need by whatever party is in power to "make their mark" on the rolls of history is despicable.

 

But since the American people are waaay too comfortable to do anything about it, nothing will ever change.

[Square]

I find it interesting that people don't think we currently pay an extra tax for the people who don't carry insurance. My hospital Tylenol is going to cost 8 bucks a piece because they have to give some away at no cost. We are charging people with insurance more while giving stuff away to the others. Putting the Obamacare specific law aside, wouldn't it make more sense to just make it an open system where we all agree that since we are providing healthcare to everyone (which we currently are) we should act like it and address the problems as such.

[cre8tiff]

Start with the Commerce Clause (though you kind of have to pick what you're complaining about - is Congress trying to regulating the business of health care, or the business of insurance).

 

If you decided "health care," then you'll probably tell me Congress can't "regulate" things like health care, which pertain to the "general welfare." I'm going to agree, but point out that Congress can tax pretty much anything, which is at the heart of the provision people don't like. More to the point, Congress isn't trying so much to regulate how health care is provided - it's merely telling folks to obtain insurance so they can pay for their own health care, instead of expecting everyone else to pay for them.

 

If you know anything about the Constitution, you'll throw the 10th Amendment at me - reminding me that we're a government of limited powers, and that powers not expressly granted to the federal government rest with the states. But then I'm going to point out that since the 1934 Supreme Court decision in Carter v. Carter Coal, the 10th Amendment has been rendered effectively meaningless.

 

If you REALLY know what you're talking about, you'll point out the 1992 Supreme Court case of New York v. United States, where the Court did place *some* limits on Congress via the 10th Amendment, but that's only when Congress is commandeering a state's legislative process by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program. But then I will remind you that Congress is not forcing the STATES to do much of anything - Congress is merely imposing a federal tax on people who choose not to buy insurance. That way, at least they're paying *something.*

 

Please remember: I don't like ObamaCare and I would love to see it repealed. But my respect for the Constitution is greater than my dislike of ObamaCare. Kind of like how I don't like guns, but I still defend the 2nd Amendment. If you only defend the parts you like, then the entire thing becomes vulnerable.

 

Ouch. That'll leave a mark.

[Ursa Majoris]

I find it interesting that people don't think we currently pay an extra tax for the people who don't carry insurance. My hospital Tylenol is going to cost 8 bucks a piece because they have to give some away at no cost. We are charging people with insurance more while giving stuff away to the others. Putting the Obamacare specific law aside, wouldn't it make more sense to just make it an open system where we all agree that since we are providing healthcare to everyone (which we currently are) we should act like it and address the problems as such.

This was the point I've tried to make repeatedly. Prior to Obamacare, the right were constantly harping on about this. Now they have switched sides and the freeloaders are the oppressed.

[WaterMan]

so if you are not sick you don't need health insurance?

 

No, if you don't own a body(ie: dead) then you don't have to buy.