How is this healthcare bill unconstitutional as the Republicans claim?

[Fan in San Diego]

From what I see the government makes us do alot of things whether we like it or not such as

 

1) Get a drivers license to drive a car.

2) Get auto INSURANCE whether you want to or not. Uninsured drivers get funded by the insured just like healthcare does.

3) Wear a seat belt.

4) Pay your income taxes.

5) Wear clothes in public whether you want to or not.

 

Face it, modern society requires the government to force us to do alot of things we would rather not do. Get over it healthcare is a good thing for the entire people. A lot of people are excluded from any heathcare because the insurance companies are looking at the bottom line. The rest of the civilized world has made this step already, we are just joining the civilized world.

 

Now if the US can just stop attacking other countries we will have lots of money for the people of the US.

[Magox]

From what I see the government makes us do alot of things whether we like it or not such as

 

1) Get a drivers license to drive a car.

2) Get auto INSURANCE whether you want to or not. Uninsured drivers get funded by the insured just like healthcare does.

3) Wear a seat belt.

4) Pay your income taxes.

5) Wear clothes in public whether you want to or not.

 

Face it, modern society requires the government to force us to do alot of things we would rather not do. Get over it healthcare is a good thing for the entire people. A lot of people are excluded from any heathcare because the insurance companies are looking at the bottom line. The rest of the civilized world has made this step already, we are just joining the civilized world.

 

Now if the US can just stop attacking other countries we will have lots of money for the people of the US.

It most likely will lose, but the examples you gave are, well.....

 

1) If you are going to be behind the wheel of a vehicle on a public road where you can endanger the lives of other people, it is just common sense that there should be some sort of mandate that you know how to drive a vehicle.

 

2) Auto Insurance is different. You are liable for the vehicle to ensure the creditor to ensure they get their funds if something happens. Then of course you are liable for other drivers just in case you damage their vehicle or worst yet, them.

 

3) Seat belt, well you should at least be liable for the other drivers in your vehicle by ensuring they wear their seat belt.

 

4) Income taxes. You pay for the Military, you pay for roads, schools etc. This is just paying your dues for living in this country.

 

The main argument they have, which I believe won't win is that there is a mandate to purchase something from another company. They say that violates the commerce clause. That's their argument, however the Commerce clause is broad and is open to interpretation and past rulings show that the courts will side with the Federal government over the states.

[DC Tom]

From what I see the government makes us do alot of things whether we like it or not such as

 

1) Get a drivers license to drive a car.

2) Get auto INSURANCE whether you want to or not. Uninsured drivers get funded by the insured just like healthcare does.

3) Wear a seat belt.

4) Pay your income taxes.

5) Wear clothes in public whether you want to or not.

 

Face it, modern society requires the government to force us to do alot of things we would rather not do. Get over it healthcare is a good thing for the entire people. A lot of people are excluded from any heathcare because the insurance companies are looking at the bottom line. The rest of the civilized world has made this step already, we are just joining the civilized world.

 

Now if the US can just stop attacking other countries we will have lots of money for the people of the US.

 

Driving a car is a personal choice...which pretty much eliminates the first three as evidence of the "government" forcing us to do anything related to them.

 

#4...the Constitution grants Congress the right to levy taxes.

 

#5...some would argue that, and most "obscenity" or "indecency" laws, are just that: unconstitutional.

 

So try some other analogies; yours suck, a lot.

 

As for the unconstutionality...I'm going to argue, for argument's sake, that it violates the First Amendment freedom of religion. Seriously. Scientific Christians, who don't believe in modern medicine, are now required to purchase health insurance agaist their religious beliefs?

[finknottle]

From what I see the government makes us do alot of things whether we like it or not such as

 

1) Get a drivers license to drive a car.

2) Get auto INSURANCE whether you want to or not. Uninsured drivers get funded by the insured just like healthcare does.

3) Wear a seat belt.

4) Pay your income taxes.

5) Wear clothes in public whether you want to or not.

 

Face it, modern society requires the government to force us to do alot of things we would rather not do. Get over it healthcare is a good thing for the entire people. A lot of people are excluded from any heathcare because the insurance companies are looking at the bottom line. The rest of the civilized world has made this step already, we are just joining the civilized world.

 

Now if the US can just stop attacking other countries we will have lots of money for the people of the US.

 

Except for (4), those are not federal laws, they are state laws (and in Virginia, you don't need car insurance). And therein lies the point. Some document or other say's that the Federal Government is supposed to do this and that, and all other powers are reserved for the states. And, so the argument goes, healthcare is not part of the federal governments purview. Regulation must be left to the States. [This, btw, has long been an argument of the right (prior to Bush) as to why the federal government should not be in the education business.]

 

Proponents of a government role argue that the Commerce clause, which gives the Federal government the authority to regulate commerce between States, is enough. And that is true, if we are finally going to allow health insurers to sell across state lines. But the other side argues that forcing somebody to buy something is not interstate commerce, and that the mandate should be struck down.

 

IMO government-run healthcare will prevail, but I do not think the argument about its unconstitutionality is groundless. Just unrealistic.

[Fan in San Diego]

It most likely will lose, but the examples you gave are, well.....

 

1) If you are going to be behind the wheel of a vehicle on a public road where you can endanger the lives of other people, it is just common sense that there should be some sort of mandate that you know how to drive a vehicle.

 

2) Auto Insurance is different. You are liable for the vehicle to ensure the creditor to ensure they get their funds if something happens. Then of course you are liable for other drivers just in case you damage their vehicle or worst yet, them.

 

3) Seat belt, well you should at least be liable for the other drivers in your vehicle by ensuring they wear their seat belt.

 

4) Income taxes. You pay for the Military, you pay for roads, schools etc. This is just paying your dues for living in this country.

 

The main argument they have, which I believe won't win is that there is a mandate to purchase something from another company. They say that violates the commerce clause. That's their argument, however the Commerce clause is broad and is open to interpretation and past rulings show that the courts will side with the Federal government over the states.

 

You gave reasons for the mandatory items listed. Which are correct. You missed the point tho, the government forces you to do things that benefit the popluation as a whole. Thats the job of governemnt.

Forced auto insurance is similar to forced health care insurance. Uninsured motorists are a drain on the responsisble people who get insurance for accidents, medical costs etc.

Now, healthcare, why force people to have health insurance? Because uninsured people end up going to emergency care and cost the insured people more by gettting expensive care without paying for it. Thats why this bill removes the exclusions for pre-existing conditions, cap limits, etc.

Now if everybody is paying healthcare premiums then healthcare premium's should actually go down. Emergency rooms being flooded should go down since they can access regular doctors.

Personally, I would have not added the kids till 26 option. Make them buy insurance on their own. Factor a minimum earnings that they can afford insurance and subsize the people below that mark. A healthy 22 year old should not have to pay alot for coverage. Most are pretty damn healthy. Then they have coverage if hit by a runaway piano or something.

 

This is all my opinion of course, but the democrats agree with me and most other countries in the nato aliance.

[Magox]

This is all my opinion of course, but the democrats agree with me and most other countries in the nato aliance.

Ya, well most NATO countries are Democratic Socialists. But thanks for making that point.

[Fan in San Diego]

Ya, well most NATO countries are Democratic Socialists. But thanks for making that point.

They are for a reason. It's good civilized government that takes care of its citizens, way better than this Republic of the United States does.

[Doc]

You gave reasons for the mandatory items listed. Which are correct. You missed the point tho, the government forces you to do things that benefit the popluation as a whole. Thats the job of governemnt.

Why stop there? Why not have government run your life? Since they know what's best for you? They'll tell you where to go, what to do, what to eat, how long to sleep, when to exercise, etc.

[Doc]

They are for a reason. It's good civilized government that takes care of its citizens, way better than this Republic of the United States does.

Why not move there?

[Doc]

Except for (4), those are not federal laws, they are state laws (and in Virginia, you don't need car insurance). And therein lies the point. Some document or other say's that the Federal Government is supposed to do this and that, and all other powers are reserved for the states. And, so the argument goes, healthcare is not part of the federal governments purview. Regulation must be left to the States. [This, btw, has long been an argument of the right (prior to Bush) as to why the federal government should not be in the education business.]

 

Proponents of a government role argue that the Commerce clause, which gives the Federal government the authority to regulate commerce between States, is enough. And that is true, if we are finally going to allow health insurers to sell across state lines. But the other side argues that forcing somebody to buy something is not interstate commerce, and that the mandate should be struck down.

 

IMO government-run healthcare will prevail, but I do not think the argument about its unconstitutionality is groundless. Just unrealistic.

That is the crux of the argument and why the challenge will prevail. It's not regulating interstate commerce. It's forcing interstate commerce.

[Magox]

They are for a reason. It's good civilized government that takes care of its citizens, way better than this Republic of the United States does.

Well you sir have a different vision for the U.S than I do. Oh and btw, 90% of those socialistic countries have been experiencing virtually no growth for 2 generations now. When you bleed the economy with severe taxes, there is no growth, unless of course you are Denmarkand you have more oil than you know what to do with and only 6 Million people to care for. Other than that, Socialist countries don't thrive.

 

Thanks but no thanks

[IDBillzFan]

They are for a reason. It's good civilized government that takes care of its citizens, way better than this Republic of the United States does.

Oh boy.

[CosmicBills]

As for the unconstutionality...I'm going to argue, for argument's sake, that it violates the First Amendment freedom of religion. Seriously. Scientific Christians, who don't believe in modern medicine, are now required to purchase health insurance agaist their religious beliefs?

That's a great point actually.

[bills_fan]

Auto insurance is a bad example. You can choose not to drive and then do not need auto insurance. Health insurance is not the same. As presently worded, if you exist in the USA, you must be a consumer of a health insurance company. Totally different things. Auto-insurance is an opt-in, you choose to drive, here are the rules. You do not need auto insurance if you do not choose to drive.

 

Health insurance...eh, notsomuch. The question is if Congress has the constitutional authority to require Americans to purchase a commodity from a private, for-profit corporation. I can say with certainty that the government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. This is a question worth examining.

 

Most will cite the commerce clause as the reason Congress can force the individual mandate on folks. However, in 1982, the Supreme Court declared that, in order for a commodity to be considered an article in commerce, it must be capable of being sold (i.e the "fungible good" test). Sporhase v. Nebraska, 458 U.S. 941 at 949 -- 950 (1982). While there is no doubt that the sale of health insurance by an insurer constitutes commerce, it does not follow that the purchase -- or more precisely, the failure to purchase -- health insurance by a consumer also constitutes commerce. Health insurance, once purchased by a consumer, is not capable of being further sold in commerce because there is no market for it; who would purchase a health insurance policy naming someone else as the insured? Therefore, it may not be a fungible good and thus the commerce clause would not apply.

 

About the only argument for the constitutionality of the individual mandate that I can reason out is that Article I empowers Congress to use its taxing powers in support of government programs that foster the public welfare; this is the constitutional authority for Social Security and Medicare. But to extend that authority to requiring Americans to purchase a private commodity raises profound civil liberties issues.

 

If Congress can compel the purchase of insurance from a for profit insurance company, it can compel the purchase of any commodity if there is an arguable public policy to support it. The auto industry is collapsing? Forget Cash for Clunkers, just order Americans to buy America cars or tax them if they don't. Obesity crisis? Order Americans to join health clubs, or tax them if they don't. So, the fundamental question that the Supreme Court will undoubtedly tackle in an individual claim (forget the state 10th Amendment cases, they never win those cases, best case will be brought by an individual) is whether Congress has the authority to make Americans into involuntary consumers whenever it so chooses.

 

EDIT: Let me be clear, the bill is likely constitutional. The real debate is the individual mandate. If the Court decides the individual mandate is unconstitutional, it is likely to strike that provision and leave the rest of the bill. This, of course, would create the single greatest shorting opportunity since Paulson cherry-picked mortgages for Abacus and made billions...insurance companies cannot deny coverage and only sick people would buy coverage, since the healthy are not required to buy. Hello bankruptcy.

[keepthefaith]

They are for a reason. It's good civilized government that takes care of its citizens, way better than this Republic of the United States does.

 

Most were in favor of reforming to the health care system. I would wager heavily that any reasonible person (even you) that studied the challenges we faced in reforming health care would never have come up with a solution that looks like what we've now adopted after taking into consideration the interests of everyone and the desired results.

[Adam]

Why stop there? Why not have government run your life? Since they know what's best for you? They'll tell you where to go, what to do, what to eat, how long to sleep, when to exercise, etc.

I look at that argument the same way as I look at the concept of letting the private sector run my life. We all have to face the fact that Utopia is out of reach- and that isn't a bad thing.

 

Why not move there?

I have never bought into the "This is the best place in the world" or "love it or leave it" mumbo jumbo. Saying that means nothing- it says accept the flaws and don't try to make things better. There is nothing more patriotic than dissidence.

 

As for the unconstutionality...I'm going to argue, for argument's sake, that it violates the First Amendment freedom of religion. Seriously. Scientific Christians, who don't believe in modern medicine, are now required to purchase health insurance agaist their religious beliefs?

I know you weren't serious about everything, but what if a religion believed in human sacrifice?

[IDBillzFan]

We all have to face the fact that Utopia is out of reach- and that isn't a bad thing.

Utopia isn't out of reach as long as you accept what utopia means, and to me, "utopia" means "blowjob."

 

So you see, utopia isn't out of reach.

 

Unless you're married.

[Dante]

They are for a reason. It's good civilized government that takes care of its citizens, way better than this Republic of the United States does.

Get out of the sun for a while. It's a good civilized government that creates an atmosphere of freedom. One in which everyone has equal chance to succeed as they wish. Not to take from others to take care of its citizens. Not to confiscate earnings of others who got that by working being responsible for themselves.

[Celtic_soulja]

Okay...is it unconstitutional?...yes, but does that matter anymore?...most likely not...our government has been sidestepping the constitution for a very long time...and lets quit with the comparisons with auto insurance...

 

Number one, car insurance, like home owners insurance, is something that is connected with a choice...for example, I dont NEED to own a home, I can rent...I don't NEED to drive a car, I can use public transportation or walk...so therefore I don't NEED homeowner or car insurance...this is much different...and has a much larger dynamic...

 

Estimated cost to the clients...you're looking at 6,000 dollars about in healthcare costs mandated...then you add on the other insurances and you're looking at about 10,000 dollars in insurances per year...considering most people make about 35,000 per year...and take home around 22,000 or so...you're looking at 12,000 dollars to pay for everything else...super job...and btw Taxes on income ARE unconstitutional as well...but we won't even get into THAT discussion...

 

My point is simply this...after getting completely abused by the bankers...abused by globalist transnational companies and layoffs...abused by the government mandates...we are left with 415 bucks to pay for utilities and rent/mortgage per month...if you thought we were broke before????...you've got a REALLY broke future to look forward to...

 

it is absolutely unconstitutional to tell us how to spend our money...

[Doc]

I look at that argument the same way as I look at the concept of letting the private sector run my life. We all have to face the fact that Utopia is out of reach- and that isn't a bad thing.

The private sector has no ability to control your life, that you don't give it. The government OTOH, is increasingly trying to control your life. So again, why stop at mandating health care? If what will truly make costs go down is eating right, exercising more, sleeping well, avoiding high risk activities, etc., why shouldn't the government mandate that you do these? They should mandate that everyone to buy health club memberships, and then check on them to make sure they're going and doing the appropriate exercise. They can tell you how many servings of fruits and veggies you have to eat each day. Maybe hook you up to an ECG to make sure you were actually sleeping those 8 hours you should be getting. Where does it end?

 

I have never bought into the "This is the best place in the world" or "love it or leave it" mumbo jumbo. Saying that means nothing- it says accept the flaws and don't try to make things better. There is nothing more patriotic than dissidence.

If health insurance is a major problem for you, maybe being in a country where medicine is socialized is the best place? Ah, but you want to be in a country where everything else is a free market. Hmmmm.