The Bill is passed.....

[Philistine]

Ummm.....Which part of the Constitution does mandating health insurance violate? I mean you could maybe say the 10th amendment, but that is a pretty weak argument, as if you go as a strict Constitutional interpretation, anything that is not specifically delegated to the US by the Constitution would therefore be Unconstitutional. In this case we would throw out something like 90% of all of the federal laws.

It is esentially universally accepted that anything that is not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution is not a proper subject of federal law.

The sticky part is in what constitutes being "specifically delegated", with the current interpretation of the interstate commerce clause leading the way to make almost anything subject to federal jurisdiction, followed by the "necessary and proper" clause.

--Philistine

[telkanuru]

It was covered by that right wing news source ABCNews. Under the house bill, you are required to purchase health insurance, failure to do so is enforced by the IRS which includes jail time.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...insurance.html

Because you would be failing to pay your taxes.

Which, by the by, are also unconstitutional.

[Bayou Bum]

Because you would be failing to pay your taxes.

Which, by the by, are also unconstitutional.

Please read the Constitution! More specifically, the 16th Amendment.

So calling it a tax makes it okay to force people to purchase something the government deems necessary? What about groups of people like the Amish that don't want your health insurance. To hell with what anyone wants, the Democrat Party will determine what everyone needs and will have to pay for. With the Democrats, you have the freedoms under the Constitution as long as they don't contradict the Democrats goals for society.

Every society on the path to socialism as we are has had to use force to silence those in opposition. So when it is time for the socialist democrats to silence me, will you pull the trigger yourself or use the government to do it for you?

[keith]

Every society on the path to socialism as we are has had to use force to silence those in opposition. So when it is time for the socialist democrats to silence me, will you pull the trigger yourself or use the government to do it for you?

Are you saying you are just going to sit there at your computer until they come banging at your door!

Sir, I am shocked.

[Purple Fencer]

Are you saying you are just going to sit there at your computer until they come banging at your door!

We can hope....

[jeff]

Is he saying that jack booted thugs forced socialized medicine down the throats of the British, French, Swedes, Australians, Dutch, etc? My what a fantasy world he lives in, and one prone to exaggeration and hysteria.

[keith]

Is he saying that jack booted thugs forced socialized medicine down the throats of the British, French, Swedes, Australians, Dutch, etc? My what a fantasy world he lives in, and one prone to exaggeration and hysteria.

Surely you have seen the huddled masses in Sydney harbour begging for room in stowage on departing cruise ships.

.... and that's not really an Opera house.

[jeff]

.... and that's not really an Opera house.

They are very, very large and confused mating turtles.

[Purple Fencer]

They are very, very large and confused mating turtles.

Sounds like bad Japanese monster porn...."Godzilla does Mothra"

ewwwww.........

[thereom4]

Yes, it passed the House even though there was a bipartisan effort against it. Obama was right, he did get republicans and some democrats to agree on something, the healthcare bill is a bad idea. I don't understand the "pass anything and fix it later" mentality. And why does no one care that the bill violates the constitution by requiring every person to purchase insurance?

So are you saying access to healthcare for everyone is a bad thing? I hope not. And no I'm not willing to send people to jail for refusing to purchase health insurance. I don't know exactly what part of the constitution the healthcare reform bill is in violation of but please feel free to let me know. I find it funny when people (not you of course) say some law or bill is in violation of the constitution when it isn't. Your narrow or broad interpretation of the constitution doesn't count. Look to the courts, look to the courts.

Are you really willing to send people to jail for refusing to purchase health insurance?

I think the penalty is ridiculous. But please lets make the distinction on what someone would be sent to jail for. Under the bill everyone would be required to carry health insurance. Those who can't afford to pay for it will be given subsidies. If you decide that you do not want to purchase health insurance you will be taxed under the IRS. If you do not pay the IRS bill, you risk criminal penalties, i.e. jail time.

[thereom4]

.....legislative powers. Who has them? Congress. What does it mean to legislate? To make or enact laws.

Source: Article 1: Sec 1 of the Constitution

P.S. Article 1: Sec 8 of the Constitution is also a great resource.

Please disregard unless you are you know who(s)

[erooMynohtnA]

.....legislative powers. Who has them? Congress. What does it mean to legislate? To make or enact laws.

Source: Article 1: Sec 1 of the Constitution

P.S. Article 1: Sec 8 of the Constitution is also a great resource.

Please disregard unless you are you know who(s)

By that logic, all laws are constitutional. Try again.

I'm not saying your specific case is wrong (because one hasn't been made), just that when you try, it's going to be a dumb argument.

[Wetmelon]

Right. Option. Until the private insurers determine that they cant compete with the taxpayer subsidized product, and get out of the business. Eliminating the OPTION.

Sweet. Then it might be fixed finally. And Canada will be able to retain its (Already overpaid) specialists... They make 400,000 a year in Canada! Friggin American healthcare pays too much...

[I_luv_saber]

I actually agree people should not be forced to buy insurance.

Insurance is something I can pay for to protect me at a later date. It's a gamble, on both the side of the purchaser and the side of the insurer. The insurer is hoping that you'll never need to be covered, so that they make money without having to pay anything out. The purchaser is gambling that their spending of a lesser $ amount per month will be less than spending a large $ amount later. Otherwise they could have simply saved the money themselves and come out ahead.

To force everyone to take that gamble seems... silly to me. It tilts the balance of haggling in favor of the insurers. As it is now, if there are no good options, you can at least choose to simply go without, and set aside your own money hoping it will be enough when the time comes. If we mandate insurance, your only really viable option is to choose a lesser of evils in some cases, as the tax you'd receive from the IRS would make it essentially pointless to duck insurance and save on your own. Essentially the insurance companies can really have you by the balls in some cases (I understand the private option is supposed to be a counter to this, but I disagree with the public option for various stated reasons).

I appreciate the goal it's trying to accomplish - I disagree with the means. To me, it's all about tuning the opportunity so everyone has a fair shake. That, along with dealing with dishonesty (by all parties) swiftly and in a just manner. The mandating insurance takes the approach of legislating the goal, rather than making sure everyone has a means and fair opportunity (this is not the case now, either).

Give people the proper opportunity, and fix the problems in our system as opposed to changing everything around, and we could have a pretty efficient, pretty low cost system (IMHO).

[keith]

I actually agree people should not be forced to buy insurance.

.... and other stuff

Of course all your objections apply to any Insurance, from social security to home contents.

Now it is reasonable to expect people to carry insurance that covers costs that may be forced onto others. So third party car insurance is a requirement, but home owners is not (assuming you do not owe on a mortgage). No one is obliged to rebuild your house if it burns down - which raises interesting questions about what is, and is not, a socially acceptable cost to prevent hardship .

Social insurance is an arguement over what costs people would pay (or do pay anyway). We do pay for the uninsured in certain cases. Unless you are argueing for denial of care, the issue of being forced to pay is a red herring in the context of health insurance.

[thereom4]

By that logic, all laws are constitutional. Try again.

I'm not saying your specific case is wrong (because one hasn't been made), just that when you try, it's going to be a dumb argument.

Need I say more?

[Slim]

I think the penalty is ridiculous. But please lets make the distinction on what someone would be sent to jail for. Under the bill everyone would be required to carry health insurance. Those who can't afford to pay for it will be given subsidies. If you decide that you do not want to purchase health insurance you will be taxed under the IRS. If you do not pay the IRS bill, you risk criminal penalties, i.e. jail time.

Some day when you graduate from the 1040-EZ form, you might understand how sinister the IRS is. Going to jail would be getting off easy.

[I_luv_saber]

Of course all your objections apply to any Insurance, from social security to home contents.

Social security is a bit of a different gig. It's a fully socialized safety net - the private sector isn't directly responsible...

Now it is reasonable to expect people to carry insurance that covers costs that may be forced onto others.

Sure. But how far are we going to extend that degree of separation? We could construe almost anything to have some impact on society (such as smoking, eating fast food, all of which "costs" society indirectly), but at some point we need to draw a line between mandating social responsibility and individual freedom.

Social insurance is an arguement over what costs people would pay (or do pay anyway). We do pay for the uninsured in certain cases. Unless you are argueing for denial of care, the issue of being forced to pay is a red herring in the context of health insurance.

In some cases we do, in some cases we don't. I don't think the indirect cost to me associated with the de facto system of paying for uninsured would be greater than the cost of paying for insurance that I was not before.

Regardless, it certainly isn't a red herring... it still doesn't change the fact mandatory insurance puts the ball firmly in the insurer's court.

[keith]

Social security is a bit of a different gig. It's a fully socialized safety net - the private sector isn't directly responsible...

Semantics . Sure it is 'different' but in reality it's the same thing - you pay your premiums and hope that the insurer doesn't go bust before it pays your benefit.

Sure. But how far are we going to extend that degree of separation? We could construe almost anything to have some impact on society (such as smoking, eating fast food, all of which "costs" society indirectly), but at some point we need to draw a line between mandating social responsibility and individual freedom.

Which is actually the important discussion. There are some things not regarded as falling under the social provision umbrella (or excluding one from it). Trouble is for all the gurning neither party is offering much of an alternative with respect to health care. There is pretty much zero discussion anywhere on what cost containment means - well not much beyond demanding that government is kept out of medicare.

Regardless, it certainly isn't a red herring... it still doesn't change the fact mandatory insurance puts the ball firmly in the insurer's court.

The red herring is that you are being forced to buy something you weren't already paying for. Whether or not the 'plan' is a good one or not is a totally different question.

[I_luv_saber]

Semantics . Sure it is 'different' but in reality it's the same thing - you pay your premiums and hope that the insurer doesn't go bust before it pays your benefit.

I think that's a pretty large and important difference, myself...

Which is actually the important discussion. There are some things not regarded as falling under the social provision umbrella (or excluding one from it). Trouble is for all the gurning neither party is offering much of an alternative with respect to health care. There is pretty much zero discussion anywhere on what cost containment means - well not much beyond demanding that government is kept out of medicare.

Okay, this is a fair enough point.

The red herring is that you are being forced to buy something you weren't already paying for.

But my point is the indirect cost of the de facto is probably less than the direct cost in mandatory insurance. Basically, yes, you are still paying for it now - but no where near to the same degree as in forced insurance. I think it's practically a distinction without a difference.