House passes Senate health care bill

[Azure]

Originally Posted by zamler

The health insurance companies strongly apposed this plan, and fought it tooth and nail with everything they had. That's all I need to know, I support it.

Really?

This bill is almost identical to the plan written by AHIP, the insurance company trade association, in 2009.
The original Senate Finance Committee bill was authored by a former Wellpoint VP. Since Congress released the first of its health care bills on October 30, 2009, health care stocks have risen 28.35%.

Yeah, they really are opposed to it.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think their argument is VERY strong.

Especially considering past interpretations of the 9th amendment.

Nevermind the 10th amendment.

I find it interesting that Obama, a Harvard Law School grad and formed constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, would stake his credibility and (in all practicality) his shot at a second term on legislation which is so obviously unconstitutional

[Ice]

Originally Posted by PIMking

if this healthcare is so good I wonder how many politicians will use it?

They don't need to. Their medical insurance and retirement pensions are better than anything any non-politician American has access to. They aren't giving up a shot at social security because they're charitable, its because they know they have something way more profitable that they're entitled to simply for being elected to office.

I do not support this bill. To say this is any sort of insurance reform just isn't true, in my opinion. The biggest issues weren't addressed and my medical insurance costs will only go up, not down. Rather than tackle the biggest issues with medical coverage in this country, our politicians have decided to bully through legislation that is not going to improve care of the average American. Insurance reform is needed, getting kickbacks from drug companies for prescribing their drug should be illegal. There are doctors who postpone surgery for their patients because the kickbacks for prescription pain medicine are so lucrative. These politicians voted to increase taxes and create a larger deficit, all the while focused on not completely alienating the medical insurance lobbyists. If they really wanted to make a difference, they would've taken their time, compromised on the bill and done it right and not looked back if they offended special interest groups representing insurance companies that have financially abused Americans and neglected patients in need for so long. The fact that NOTHING in the legislation affects anyone who had a part in creating and those who are affected had their voices ignored flat out stinks.

[PyramidsofMars]

I would really hate to live in the US and have my choice be between evil right-wingers and a bunch of incompetent centrists who can barely agree on policies their party proposes, when they're coherent enough to formulate policies at all, and can't get any of their ideas moving forward in their original form because they're so focused on shooting themselves in the foot! And who else are you going to vote for? Clowns that will never have real political relevance?

Oh, wait...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mike F

I find it interesting that Obama, a Harvard Law School grad and formed constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, would stake his credibility and (in all practicality) his shot at a second term on legislation which is so obviously unconstitutional

lol. don't make him more than he really is. A politician who likes hearing himself talk.

Why would Obama risk a second term by keeping the Patriot Act in place? Why would Obama risk a second term by denying more Freedom of Information Act requests than Bush did?

Why? Because he's a politician, and one problem that every single politician has is thinking they know whats best for everyone else.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

lol. don't make him more than he really is. A politician who likes hearing himself talk.

Why would Obama risk a second term by keeping the Patriot Act in place? Why would Obama risk a second term by denying more Freedom of Information Act requests than Bush did?

Why? Because he's a politician, and one problem that every single politician has is thinking they know whats best for everyone else.

That doesn't refute the point that the man behind the bill is among the elite constitutional scholars in the nation.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

That doesn't refute the point that the man behind the bill is among the elite constitutional scholars in the nation.

If you're so convinced that Obama, Reid and Pelosi are right, and its perfectly constitutional to FORCE people to buy insurance, please tell me how.

I'll gladly admit I'm wrong once I actually understand how its supposed to work.

You can even make use of your esteemed law degree.

I'll throw this at you. If you can force people to buy insurance, can you force them to start eating a low-fat diet or stand at risk of paying fines?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

If you're so convinced that Obama, Reid and Pelosi are right, and its perfectly constitutional to FORCE people to buy insurance, please tell me how.

I'll gladly admit I'm wrong once I actually understand how its supposed to work.

You can even make use of your esteemed law degree.

I'll throw this at you. If you can force people to buy insurance, can you force them to start eating a low-fat diet or stand at risk of paying fines?

I'm no constitutional scholar, not my area of expertise and I've never claimed that it was. I have a solid understanding of the case law and the basics of the whole thing, but to be honest I haven't paid all that much attention to the details of this bill as I have a real job that involves entirely separate areas of law and it's been quite busy. You can see my previous post where I said that I don't claim that there is no possible argument against the constitutionality of the bill if you'd like, it was directed at you. Arguing against an argument that is simply a conclusion based on an inaccurate understanding of basic constitutional law (as doglover was making) doesn't mean I've deemed the bill 100% free of challenge.

What I will argue is that threats of lawsuits that fall on party lines are not an indication of unconstitutionality, and that the architect of this bill is highly versed in constitutional law. I'll defer to that for the time being, if you can direct me to the actual legal merits of the proposed challenges (not just the clauses) it would be helpful.

Not my analysis obviously, but here is an argument supporting the constitutionality. There are additional supporting articles linked at the bottom of the page. http://www.acslaw.org/node/15619

Sorry to keep editing, but this article (linked from the previous one) by Erwin Chemernisky, widely regarded as the go to guy for Con law issues is particularly on point to your question. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28620.html

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Your arrogance is apparently blinding enough that you don't realize that there is something VERY unconstitutional about forcing people to buy insurance.

Wow, you're still beating this drum?

The willfully uninsured are currently being subsidized by the insured. That is fact.
This "tax" would effort to balance to equation.

It's not some Bolshevik plot.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Wow, you're still beating this drum?

The willfully uninsured are currently being subsidized by the insured. That is fact.
This "tax" would effort to balance to equation.

It's not some Bolshevik plot.

Beating what drum? That there is something wrong with the government forcing people to buy something that they don't want?

Really?

I don't really care how they're going to pay for it. I'm not going to go read 2,000 pages of politician stupidity. The two things I have an issue with are forcing people to buy insurance and overriding state legislation when it comes to healthcare.

And I'm not the only one. Like I said before over 30 states have looked at or are drafting legislation that basically says the the federal government has no right to force insurance as well as a few other things.

This is NOT a black and white issue. The Supreme Court WILL be looking at this, and there is a chance that they can force the Democrats to repeal that specific law.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if they did.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Beating what drum? That there is something wrong with the government forcing people to buy something that they don't want?

Really?

I don't really care how they're going to pay for it. I'm not going to go read 2,000 pages of politician stupidity. The two things I have an issue with are forcing people to buy insurance and overriding state legislation when it comes to healthcare.

And I'm not the only one. Like I said before over 30 states have looked at or are drafting legislation that basically says the the federal government has no right to force insurance as well as a few other things.

This is NOT a black and white issue. The Supreme Court WILL be looking at this, and there is a chance that they can force the Democrats to repeal that specific law.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if they did.

I will be so shocked if this happens that I will put "Azure is Nostradamus" in my sig.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

Beating what drum? That there is something wrong with the government forcing people to buy something that they don't want?

Really?

I don't really care how they're going to pay for it. I'm not going to go read 2,000 pages of politician stupidity. The two things I have an issue with are forcing people to buy insurance and overriding state legislation when it comes to healthcare.

And I'm not the only one. Like I said before over 30 states have looked at or are drafting legislation that basically says the the federal government has no right to force insurance as well as a few other things.

This is NOT a black and white issue. The Supreme Court WILL be looking at this, and there is a chance that they can force the Democrats to repeal that specific law.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if they did.

Umm, supremacy clause?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Azure

Beating what drum? That there is something wrong with the government forcing people to buy something that they don't want?

Really?

I don't really care how they're going to pay for it. I'm not going to go read 2,000 pages of politician stupidity. The two things I have an issue with are forcing people to buy insurance and overriding state legislation when it comes to healthcare.

And I'm not the only one. Like I said before over 30 states have looked at or are drafting legislation that basically says the the federal government has no right to force insurance as well as a few other things.

This is NOT a black and white issue. The Supreme Court WILL be looking at this, and there is a chance that they can force the Democrats to repeal that specific law.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if they did.

Do you have a problem with the Canadian government forcing you to insure your car?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Beating what drum?

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...bama+letterman

You've been arguing this same point for half a year now.
Which isn't necessarily bad, but you're flat wrong.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Not even close. The disparity in taxes paid between Canada and the USA is greatly exaggerated. Going by % of GDP, the USA's various levels of government bring in tax revenue at a rate of 27% compared to Canada which is about 32%. If you factor in the massive amounts of private money spent on health care in the USA (the equivalent of which in Canada is paid through tax revenues) the disparity largely disappears. Health care costs in the USA are about 15% of GDP and much of that is funded privately. That more than eats up any tax savings in the USA.

Now these are based on national numbers, so there are some places with lower tax burdens (states with little or no state income or sales tax) but there are also many states with much higher tax burdens than Canada.

Yep. Living in the States for the past year and 7 years ago for a couple of years and then spending the rest of my time Canada the tax difference is greatly exaggerated. Our gross income hasn't changed and while I pay lower taxes, the difference really is made up on healthcare coverage costs that come out of my cheque and the damn co-pays whenever one of us sees a doctor. For our family coverage I pay just under $5000 per year not including the co-pays ($15-45 a visit). Many other pay more but our company pays 70% rather than a very typical 50%. That $5000 is a pretty damn big chunk of change. Geez even if someone makes 100k that's still 5% of your gross salary....pretty much the difference in tax rates between the two countries. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian and raised to believe that no one should go without medical coverage but I'd much rather give that 5% to the gov't for (properly run) universal healthcare. Well as well run as you can expect.

Now I do have more disposable income than I did but that has nothing to do with tax rates but that I simply moved to a very cheap part of North America. Our 200k house in Calgary, for instance, would be over 700k last I looked.

It's funny because I live very much in republican country and they always ask me for the horror stories of universal healthcare and they certainly exist. But I've never heard of anyone going bankrupt or having to take out a loan to pay healthcare expenses. Down here, I know two families personally that in the past year have had extreme financial difficulties due to health reasons.

Now IMO the reform doesn't go nearly far enough. But honestly there is no way they can get reform to go as far as it needs to. It's a baby step. You know a wobbly, somewhat off balance step...but a step nonetheless.

[Gozer]

Really Azure, the logical extension of your argument is that if I choose to not buy insurance then a doctor has the same right - to refuse to treat me until payed.

And I'm not trying to vilify you when I say that.

It's actually quite reasonable, if you are bankrupt then a restaurant isn't required by law to feed you and if you are homeless then a hotel is not required by law to house you. Both hypotheticals can be equally as urgent but the government demands more of the health care industry.
And, just like any other industry, the paying customer always absorbs an arbitrary burden.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm no constitutional scholar, not my area of expertise and I've never claimed that it was. I have a solid understanding of the case law and the basics of the whole thing, but to be honest I haven't paid all that much attention to the details of this bill as I have a real job that involves entirely separate areas of law and it's been quite busy. You can see my previous post where I said that I don't claim that there is no possible argument against the constitutionality of the bill if you'd like, it was directed at you. Arguing against an argument that is simply a conclusion based on an inaccurate understanding of basic constitutional law (as doglover was making) doesn't mean I've deemed the bill 100% free of challenge.

What I will argue is that threats of lawsuits that fall on party lines are not an indication of unconstitutionality, and that the architect of this bill is highly versed in constitutional law. I'll defer to that for the time being, if you can direct me to the actual legal merits of the proposed challenges (not just the clauses) it would be helpful.

Not my analysis obviously, but here is an argument supporting the constitutionality. There are additional supporting articles linked at the bottom of the page. http://www.acslaw.org/node/15619

Sorry to keep editing, but this article (linked from the previous one) by Erwin Chemernisky, widely regarded as the go to guy for Con law issues is particularly on point to your question. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28620.html

I've read all that and can certainly appreciate where they're coming from. But he's so wrong. Healthcare insurance is NOT interstate commerce. It is by LAW not allowed to be INTERSTATE. Tort reform? Yeah, they choose not to go down that route, so how the hell can they use the interstate commerce clause to justify forcing people to buy health insurance?

As far as I'm concerned they're using the Commerce Clause to justify forcing people to buy healthcare insurance and it simply doesn't fly.

It doesn't fly because refraining from purchasing insurance is by definition not engaging in commerce and FedGov has no right to mandate a lack of commerce.

Otherwise, you have to float the stupid idea that merely being alive is somehow interstate commerce and then there would be no limit to the commerce clause and to Congress’s authority to regulate everything you(speaking to Americans) do, which clearly is not the intention of the clause.

I think you're all forgetting what this 'fine' actually is. It IS a tax on living. People are going to be punished for choosing not to do something.

Here is what Randy Barnett, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown had to say about it.

Can Congress really require that every person purchase health insurance from a private company or face a penalty? The answer lies in the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states." Historically, insurance contracts were not considered commerce, which referred to trade and carriage of merchandise. That's why insurance has traditionally been regulated by states. But the Supreme Court has long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of "economic" activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce. The key is that those activities substantially affect interstate commerce, and that's how the court would probably view the regulation of health insurance.

But the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company. Regulating the auto industry or paying "cash for clunkers" is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another. Even during World War II, the federal government did not mandate that individual citizens purchase war bonds.

If you choose to drive a car, then maybe you can be made to buy insurance against the possibility of inflicting harm on others. But making you buy insurance merely because you are alive is a claim of power from which many Americans instinctively shrink. Senate Republicans made this objection, and it was defeated on a party-line vote, but it will return.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031901470.html

In regards to the 10th amendment. From the same article.

Of course, there is one additional way for states to win a fight about the constitutionality of health-care legislation: Make it unconstitutional. Article V of the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to require Congress to convene a convention to propose an amendment to the Constitution. If two-thirds of state legislatures demand an amendment barring the federal regulation of health insurance or an individual mandate, Congress would be constitutionally bound to hold a convention. Something like this happened in 1933 when Congress proposed and two-thirds of the states ratified the 21st Amendment, removing from the Constitution the federal power to prohibit the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol. But the very threat of an amendment convention would probably induce Congress to repeal the bill.

I dare someone to make this a black and white issue. Because you have respected Georgetown Law professors saying its a VERY grey area, to the extent that the Supreme Court could force the Democrats to ratify it, and Erwin Chemernisky, another highly respected constitutional lawyer saying it is constitutional.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

Umm, supremacy clause?

Of course, there is one additional way for states to win a fight about the constitutionality of health-care legislation: Make it unconstitutional. Article V of the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to require Congress to convene a convention to propose an amendment to the Constitution. If two-thirds of state legislatures demand an amendment barring the federal regulation of health insurance or an individual mandate, Congress would be constitutionally bound to hold a convention. Something like this happened in 1933 when Congress proposed and two-thirds of the states ratified the 21st Amendment, removing from the Constitution the federal power to prohibit the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol. But the very threat of an amendment convention would probably induce Congress to repeal the bill.

He did say that without doing this there is a very little chance that the states could do anything about it.

From the Randy Barnett article I posted below.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Do you have a problem with the Canadian government forcing you to insure your car?

Uhhh, yeah?

I have a problem with any government forcing me to do anything.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...bama+letterman

You've been arguing this same point for half a year now.
Which isn't necessarily bad, but you're flat wrong.

You're missing the point. I've gone beyond actually arguing about the specifics of the healthcare bill. I didn't even bring any of that up.

All I'm saying is that some very smart people are questioning how it is constitutional to force people to buy health insurance.

I'm very curious how a 'interstate' commerce clause can apply to a product that is essentially not allowed to be 'interstate.'

Then again, this is the US government we're talking about, and chances are they'll just make up some dumb crap ruling and pass it on through.